Palestinian Crowd Control

Liveleak.com provides the following disturbing but intriguing video of an alleged Hamas sniper dispersing a group of Fatah gunmen with one well-place shot.

Content warning for... well, you'll see at the 27-second mark.

Early in the clip, we see a group of gunmen, which the person who posted this video clip thinks belong to the Palestinian Fatah party, which, depending on your point of view and perhaps which branch of Fatah you are talking about, may be viewed as a legitimate part of the Palestinian government, or as a terrorist organization. You'll note that all or most of the gunmen are wearing what can loosely be defined as a uniform, of sorts: dark, short-sleeved shorts, long black pants, various kinds of military web gear, and AK-pattern rifles.

Based upon the way they are clustered, it seems evident that they have little or no military training. A burst from a machine gun or an RPG strike could easily decimate the tightly-bunched group of at least six gunmen, not to mention the none-too bright bystanders only feet behind them. If this is representative of how Palestinian civilians typically observe urban combat, the Israeli Defense Forces deserve the Nobel Peace Prize every year for not killing thousands of them when engaging legitimate Palestinian military targets.

At the 26-second mark, the lead gunman steps away from the cover of the wall and raises his rifle to fire. A split second later, he squeezes off a shot as his last mortal act before collapsing from a single shot to the central nervous system a split second later.

Several bystanders then rush in with several of the other gunmen to drag the man who has just be shot out of the line of fire, some with hands raised. the group of gunmen and their supporters then sage a rapid retreat with the body of their martyr. It wasn't pretty, but a single shot ended this particular skirmish before it actually began.

Eric Boehlert's Creepy Obsession

I've only come across this story several days late, but has anyone noticed that Eric Boehlert of Media Matters is obsessed with Michelle Malkin?

It would appear to be an unhealthy obsession at best, but perhaps what irritates me about his posts the most is not his opinion of Malkin, to which he is certainly entitled, but the fact that Boehlert can't keep his facts straight, which seems to be a long-running problem.

He concludes his most recent attack by listing bullet points of what he considers "Malkin’s recent lowlights,” including the following:

• In April 2005, Malkin was leading the charge (i.e. "raising troubling questions") in accusing a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer with the Associated Press of working in concert with Iraqi insurgents to stage the public assassination of a Baghdad election worker. (The photog was tipped off by terrorists, Malkin claimed.) The allegations were proven to completely fictitious.

Entirely ficticious, Mr. Boehlert?

You wouldn't find it in Boehlert's article—he does not have the integrity to link directly to the Malkin post in question—nor does he link to the April, 2006 article on Malkin's site that shows that the charges were far from "completely fictitious." As a matter of fact, it appears that the charges may have been quite accurate. What is Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Bilal Hussein doing now?

Cooling his heels in an Iraqi jail after being captured with al Qaeda leader Hamid Hamad Motib and another terrorist. Somehow, I doubt Boehlert will apologize for being wrong.

But this wasn't Boehlert's only questionable lowlight, as he concludes with this gem, near and dear to my own heart:

• In January, Malkin experienced a particularly humiliating setback. For months, Malkin had been pushing a far-fetched media "scandal" by accusing the Associated Press of manufacturing a "phony" and "bogus" Iraqi police source who was reporting false stories about the daily carnage inside Baghdad. She claimed the phony AP source proved that all of the AP's Iraq reporting was suspect. (Malkin and company cling to the notion that the situation in Iraq is not as bad as biased journalists make it out to be.) In January, the Iraqi government confirmed the police source's existence, thereby ruining Malkin's press-hating conspiracy theory. (The Post remained silent when Malkin's Jamil Hussein allegation imploded.)

This may be a news flash to Boehlert, but as regular readers of Confederate Yankee know, there is no Jamil Hussein, there never has been, and despite what Boehlert and the Associated Press maintain, Iraqi General Abdul-Karim Khalaf says he never confirmed the existence of Jamil Hussein, and he has gone on the record to set the story straight.

Instead of the General confirming the existence of Jamil Hussein, Associated Press reporters confirmed to General Abdul-Karim that Jamil Hussein was a pseudonym; the name of the source the AP misrepresented as Jamil Hussein was actually Jamil Gulaim Innad XX-XXXXXXX [Name redacted for security reasons — Ed.], which AP reporters confirmed both during a conversation with General Abdul-Karim prior to Steven R. Hurst's deceptive January 4 article, and with a phone call to General Abdul-Karim after XX-XXXXXXX was interviewed by the Ministry of the Interior.

Eric Boehlert's obsession with Michelle Malkin is a bit creepy, but the fact he seems quite willing to lie—or is just an incompetent researcher—goes far beyond his obsessionwith Michelle Malkin, to whether or not we can trust him to be the least bit honest or accountable for the things that he writes.

Iranians State "Right" To Pursue Kurdish Rebels Into Iraq

Ostensibly, this means they won't have any problem if we decide we need to return the favor:

Iran's forces may cross into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels if the government in Baghdad can't expel the militants from border areas, an Iranian commander said.

"I warn Iraq's Kurdish movements and anti-revolutionary armed insurgents who are linked with foreigners that Iraq's government must oust them from the region," Revolutionary Guards leader Yahya Rahim Safavi was cited as saying today by state-run Mehr News. "Otherwise the Revolutionary Guards, to protect the security of the country and Iranian people, will consider it as their right to chase and neutralize them beyond the borders."

I hope that U.S. State Department diplomats will take measures to make sure this is a reciprocal "right" that can be enjoyed by Coalition military forces as they meet with Iranian diplomats as part of an international meeting on Iraq, but somehow I doubt it.

Update: If I was a Kurdish rebel, and this is an example of the kind of pursuit the Iranians have in mind, I'm not sure that I'd be all that concerned.

The Iranians sure are lucky that the Kurds seem to be having a harder time finding EFPs than their neighbors further south.

BDS, EFPs, and the NY Times

One of the (often deserved) knocks against journalists is that many reporters are generalists, covering a wide range of breaking news stories, but lacking the specific knowledge one needs to write cogently or with any depth on a specific issue. That is especially true in smaller news organizations, where a general news reporter may have to cover a crash, a zoning board meeting, or an anti-hobo-kicking rally, depending on the news of the day.

At larger news organizations, however, reporters often fall into "silos," covering a certain beat, where they are expected to specialize on a specific kind of news story. This is why we have financial reporters, foreign affairs reporters and that guy who talks about "hog futures" (I tend to think that hog futures are almost all the same, usually involving their role as an entrée, unless they have an exceptionally literate spider nearby, but I digress).

A clear example of this kind of stellar, specialized reporting was published in the NY Times yesterday morning, U.S. Displays Bomb Parts Said to Be Made in Iran. After reading the article, I was left wondering if James Glantz and Richard A. Oppel, Jr., had transcended being mere reporters, as their insightful commentary was clearly approaching the level where they could soon be rubbing elbows with a frigid of Maureen Dowds or a pod of Oliver Willi.

Take a moment to bask in the glory of their perfectly honed lede:

— In a dusty field near the Baghdad airport on Monday, the American military laid out a display of hundreds of components for assembling deadly roadside bombs, its latest effort to embarrass the country it contends is supplying the material to armed Shiite groups here: Iran.

All along, I've been under the delusion that we were fighting Sunni insurgents, al Qaeda terrorists, and Shia militias in an attempt to bring some sort of stability to the 26 million people of Iraq. What was I thinking? As the razor-sharp team of Glantz and Oppel astutely noted, our military goal—of which this is just the "latest effort"—is the embarrassment of Iran. How did I miss that? Well, that is why they are the professionals, and I'm just a blogger.

It takes a sharp dedicated mind to cover the war for the NY Times. Listen to how these crack experts can turn even the most technical matter into speech even us common folk can understand:

The cache included what Maj. Marty Weber, a master explosives ordnance technician, said was C-4 explosive, a white substance, in clear plastic bags with red labels that he said contained serial numbers and other information that clearly marked it as Iranian.

See? C4 is a "white substance" with "red labels" in a "clear plastic bag." That I can grasp. It has, as we say, meat on it.

Why, if someone had tried to tell us that C4 was a durable, moldable RDX-based high explosive, it would have been far too complex to comprehend. I guess we're just lucky our soldiers didn't find any triacetone triperoxide.

But sometimes, even such experts as Glantz and Oppel can find the more technical aspects of their job, well, confusing:

But while the find gave experts much more information on the makings of the E.F.P.’s, which the American military has repeatedly argued must originate in Iran, the cache also included items that appeared to cloud the issue.

Among the confusing elements were cardboard boxes of the gray plastic PVC tubes used to make the canisters. The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran. One box said in English that the tubes inside had been made in the United Arab Emirates and another said, in Arabic, “plastic made in Haditha,” a restive Sunni town on the Euphrates River in Iraq.

The box marked U.A.E. provided a phone number for the manufacturer there. A call to that number late Monday encountered only an answering machine that said, “Leave your number and we will call you back.”

Quite confusing, indeed.

These tubes made of the very rare element PVC. The fact that none of these tubes was made in Iran "cloud[s] the issue," for Glantz and Oppel in much the same way that Toyota's manufactured in Tennessee are still "Japanese cars."

The thing is, these commonly-found components didn't really seem to cloud the issue at all. At least, it didn't cloud the issue for the guys who created a series of PowerPoint presentations for a security services company in Iraq that just happened to fall into my lap.

The tubes, be they plastic or metal, made in Tehran, Haditha, or Boise, don't really matter. Any tube of the right size can be used to make an EFP, as even I can figure out. What matters are the explosive charge and the copper liners that form into slugs when the EFP detonates.

Why, one might even think that Glantz and Oppel were the ones purposefully trying to cloud the issue, but I guess that even professionals can get confused, so I'll see what little I can do to help.

This is a captured EFP.

It doesn't have a "made in Iran" stamp on it, so I can see how two of the Times best could get confused.

It isn't shiny, and it isn't pretty, but then, it doesn't have to be. What matters is that the copper disk liner on the front is manufactured to precise tolerances to form a slug when the explosive blast wave hits it. These aren't very easy to make without the right manufacturing equipment, and the kind of manufacturing equipment used to make them can often be determined from tool marks left on the copper disks. These marks are like fingerprints if not quite as precise, and can often determine where an EFP came from, especially if the EFP is captured intact before firing.

That is essentially what Maj. Jeremy Siegrist attempted to tell Glantz and Oppel, but they still seemed confused and captivated by the tubes. They even apparently misplace Siegrist's quote to make it appear he is talking about the PVC tubes in this cache, as opposed to the machined copper disks to which he seems to be rather obviously referring. Journalism? It's hard.

Items in the cache included the concave copper dishes called liners that cap the canisters and roll into deadly armor-piercing slugs when the explosive detonates. There were also various kinds of electronics, presumably for arming and triggering the devices, the PVC tubes, and two types of rockets and mortar shells that Major Weber said had markings and construction that identified them as being Iranian in origin.

The PVC tubes, of several different sizes, appeared to be fittings of the kind of used to splice two stretches of PVC tube together in routine applications.

“It’s worth pursuing that it’s machine-made and you can track the country of origin,” said Maj. Jeremy Siegrist of the First Cavalry Division. “And it’s manufactured for a specific purpose.”

The terrorists that use them have found that when EFPs are shiny and pretty, soldiers tend not to drive in front of them, and so they started camouflaging them by burying them in dirt mounds, or other roadside debris, or in fake rocks, like this one.

This particular fake rock EFP is quite nasty, as many of the newer EFPs are. This is a bank of 5 EFPs hidden in one fake rock, aimed at slightly different angles to create a wider spread of fire across a larger area.

As stated earlier, and mentioned above by Maj. Siegrist, these copper disks have a very specific purpose behind their design; the blast wave created when the explosive charge goes off will turn a properly shaped copper disk into a explosively-formed penetrator like the one below, moving at up to 2,000 meters/second.

These penetrators do very nasty things, as you might imagine, but you'll have to go elsewhere to see the results. Unlike CNN, I'm not interested in promoting the results of a terrorist attack. I will however, show you what an EFP looks like even after it has hit its target.

As you can see, a properly manufactured EFP still holds together rather well even after hitting an armored vehicle and injuring or killing those inside.

Improperly manufactured EFPs, presumably, don't work as well. If not shaped properly, they will, instead of forming a dart-like penetrator, will be thrust forward as some sort of misshapen blog blob with far less penetrative power that could go wildly off target, or simply shatter on detonation in far less lethal shrapnel.

I hope this little bit of information eases the confused clouds surrounding and created by Glantz and Oppel, and yet somehow, I doubt it. They're covering the war to embarrass Iran, not the one we are actually fighting.

Editing the Offensive

I must confess that I simply don't get it (well, except for the puppet show, which is predictable to a tedious degree).

So what if Arianna Huffington felt compelled to close her comments, and then started deleting (but not fast enough) hate-filled invective left by liberal commenters? I have to do that every time certain liberal sites link to mine.

It kind of comes with the clientele.

Taliban Claims Attempt on Cheney

File this one under wishful thinking:

A Taliban suicide bomber killed up to 12 people at the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday in an attack the rebels said was aimed at Dick Cheney, but the visiting U.S. vice president was not hurt.

An American and South Korea soldier were killed, as well as a U.S. government contractor whose nationality was unknown, NATO and Korean officials said. NATO said 27 people were wounded.

A Reuters photographer at the scene at Bagram Airbase, 60 km (40 miles) north of Kabul, saw eight bodies in addition to NATO's tally of four dead, putting the toll at 12.

"We wanted to target ... Cheney," Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location.

An terrorism expert cited on WPTF radio stated that there was possibly a leak from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) revealing Cheney's trip to Bagram, which followed on the heels of the Vice President's trip to Pakistan, in which Cheney asked Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on al Qaeda and Taliban elements operating out of the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border.

It almost goes without saying that the suicide bombing attempt, while bloody, was a futile effort. Bagram is a huge airbase, and Cheney was far from the edge of the base where the attack occurred, and under multiple layers of security. Almost any other kind of attack—mortars or rockets come to mind—would have still likely failed, but still would have had a far greater chance of success than the truck bomb on the edge of the perimeter. Instead of getting anywhere near the Vice President, the suicide bomber instead killed several soldiers and the rest of the victims appear to be civilian truckers and workers waiting to have their vehicles searched before entering the base.

It will be very interesting to see how Musharraf reacts to this apparent leak from within his nation's security service.

Pat Dollard: Living With Snipers

Pat Dollard's letting me run an unedited version of Living with Snipers from his "Young Americans" Iraq War documentary series as a semi-exclusive (avialable in full only here on CY and patdollard.com). Content warning for language. Thanks to Pat's web guy Chad Coleman for setting up the embed code.

Update: Hot Air has a more polished, abbreviated and cleaner (language-wise) version of this clip for those of you who may be sucking your employer's bandwidth.

The Scandal that Refuses to Die: AP PR Director Alleges Iraqi General Lied About Jamil Hussein

The Jamil still-not-Hussein story is getting interesting again, with the AP's Director of Media Relations & Public Affairs, Linda Wagner, sending me an email early Saturday morning strongly implying that Iraqi Interior Ministry Spokesman Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf lied when he stated that he never confirmed the identity of the AP's two-year source as Jamil Hussein in an exclusive to Pajamas Media last week.

Wagner stated:

Mr. Owens,

AP knows that police officer Jamil Gholaim Hussein was its source. We did wish to obtain from Brigadier General Khalaf confirmation that Hussein is on the Iraqi police force, after Khalaf had earlier denied that fact. Khalaf provided that information on January 4.

An AP reporter attended the Iraqi Interior Ministry briefing on January 4. After the briefing, the AP reporter spoke to Khalaf who confirmed for the record what he had told that same reporter on the phone unofficially the night before:

* that Jamil Hussein's name could not be found in their initial search of their Iraqi police employee records.
* that subsequent searches of those records turned up Jamil Gholaim Hussein, which is the name AP reported in late November 2006.

Khalaf has since told the same thing to another AP reporter.

Linda Wagner
Director of Media Relations & Public Affairs
The Associated Press

I'd be very interested to see how BG Khalaf "provided that information" on January 4, if he in fact did so. He maintains, of course, that the story is quite the opposite, that the AP reporters he spoke with confirmed their source as someone with a different name (Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX [Name redacted for security reasons — Ed.]), on two occasions.

If the Associated Press has documentation proving their allegation, then things could get very interesting for the Interior Ministry spokesman, but at this point, Wagner has refused to answer whether or not they have anything to support their contention, or if they are simply going on the word of their reporters, which are apparently the same reporters that have been completely unable to substantiate the claim that 24 people died in the Hurriyah mosque attacks with any physical evidence over the past three months.

The burden of proof rests fully on the Associated Press to prove that "Hussein" exists, and so far, they have fallen woefully short.

Alleged Sunni Rape Victim an Apparent Mormon

As relayed by a source in Iraq, Al-Iraqiya television at 9:00 PM had breaking news about the investigation of the rape alleged by Sabrine al-Janabi, the woman that brought rape charges against Iraqi policemen one week ago today. According to the account relayed this morning, it seems like her name is false and that she has more than one husband, to boot:

The channel carries a report by its correspondent Thamir al-Shammari on the alleged rape of an Iraqi woman called Sabrine al-Janabi. The report says: "The investigation committee that was formed to look into the case revealed initial facts about the real name of Sabrin al-Janabi, which is Zaynab al-Shammari, who is married to more than one man according to official papers. She also has a daughter, according to the Interior Ministry undersecretary, who chairs the investigation committee." The undersecretary is shown saying that it has been proved that Zaynab was married to two men at the same time, which is a violation of the law and Islamic law.

This case just keeps getting stranger.

More on that Iranian Fauxtography

As you might recall, Charles Johnson caught the Iranian Fars News Agency in a crude attempt to PhotoShop "evidence" showing the United States was supplying insurgents in Iran with munitions. With my background in things that go bang, I noticed and commented on the fact that ammunition in the manipulated picture was nothing less than old Winchester USA civilian-grade practice ammunition.

Several readers chimed in to date the ammunition packaging to 10-20 years old, and several sent in photos to prove it.

One of those readers, Don Jordan, went so far as to contact Olin Corporation, Winchester's parent company, to get the official word from the company itself, and they provided the following response:

Mr. Jordan,

Thank you for visiting Olin's website. Your inquiry was forwarded to me
for response.

The ammunition boxes appearing in the picture are similar to commercial packaging we began using about 20 years ago and subsequently discontinued using approximately 15 years ago. I also feel it important to note that Winchester is a proud supporter of our military forces and complies with all U.S. Departments of State, Commerce and Treasury regulations with regard to the sale of our products. Although we believe this photo has been altered, we do take this allegation seriously and can assure the public that Winchester has not, does not and will not supply any product to Iran or any other country or person that does not meet the approval of the U.S. Government.

I hope this information is helpful, and I thank you for contacting us.

Ann Pipkin
Olin Corporation

Vintage ammunition and a poorly 'Shopped picture.

The boys at Far News just aren't very clever.

Can I See Some ID?

"Yeah, I just saw that guy toss a grenade into an orphange, but since I can't see his al Qaeda ID card from here, Harry Reid said I have to let him go."

Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.

Controversial Iraqi Rape Claim May Be "Red-On-Red"

I first heard of the allegations that a Sunni woman was raped by three Iraqi police officers they way many bloggers did, on an Iraqi blog called Baghdad Burning, where a blogger using the pseudonym "Riverbend" reported watching a 20-year-old woman by the name of Sabrine Al-Janabi reporting her alleged ordeal on al Jazeera television:

As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.

It is worth noting that discussing rape is taboo in Arab cultures, where the "honor killings" of rape victims is an accepted practice, and that for a woman to come out to the broadcast news the day after such an attack and describe it in detail, anywhere in the world on camera, is highly atypical, to say the least.

Throw in the fact that al Jazeera got an exclusive on this--they've been expelled from Iraq for biased reporting-- and note that some of the language used by Al-Janabi were "antithetical to Iraqi national unity" as one expert put it, that the Association of Muslim Scholars (an al Qaeda-aligned group whose leader Harith Dhari fled Iraq on charges of inciting terrorism in December) was right there to denounce the alleged rape, and that leading Sunni politicians immediately used this alleged attack to start questioning the Baghdad security plan just as the "surge" was cracking down hardest on Sunni terrorist groups, and you've got plausible reason to question the timing and delivery of the story.

This is not to say that rapes have not occurred in Iraq at the hands of security forces, as they almost certainly have--the alleged rape of a 50-year-old woman in Tal Afar by four soldiers, stopped by a fifth at gunpoint seems quite plausible--but the choreography of the events surrounding Al-Janabi's account bear further scrutiny, especially in light of the fact it is being used by Sunni politicans and insurgent groups as a rallying point to try to thwart the Baghdad security plan, that at the moment, is hitting them the hardest.

Presently, it appears the politicians and the terrorists are trying to use issue to break the security plan on sectarian lines, alleging that the Shia-run police are attacking Sunni women.

There is just one problem with that theory: according to Yassen Mageed of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s office, and reported on Al Iraqiya TV Wednesday; all three officers that Al-Janabi alleged raped her are Sunni.

I'm presently in the process of trying to get Mageed's statement verified, and hoping the get the names, ranks and confirmation of the sect of these three officers through my contacts in the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The MOI is currently conducting an investigation of Al-Janabi's rape allegations, and once the investigation is complete, I'm told they plan to go on the record with their findings.

Surprisingly enough, the allegation by Yassen Mageed on Al Iraqiya TV that the three accused officers are Sunni does not appear to have been picked up by the world press.

As the allegation that this is a Sunni-on-Sunni crime would certainly dampen the rhetoric of Sunnis attempting to use this incident to force an end to the "surge," I find it quite interesting that the world media has completely failed to pick up this story.

Update: An account on Fox News now reports that two of the three policement accused are Sunni:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has exonerated the three policemen accused in the alleged Baghdad rape following an investigation that lasted less than a day. He accused Sunni politicians of fabricating the allegation to undermine support for the security forces during the ongoing Baghdad crackdown. Some Shiite lawmakers said the three included two Sunni Arabs.

They're slow, but better late than never. I do wonder, however, why this development isn't getting more attention.

USO After Death

By request from one of our men "over there."

Funny how some things haven't changed in all these years.

When the Deceptive and Uninformed Attack

The liberal blog The Carpetbagger Report has a post up this morning entitled They don’t even have the right rifles, in which the author laments over National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers being re-deployed without enough time between deployments and without the right equipment.

The post is based upon this article in today's New York Times.

Now, it is perhaps deceptive enough that the blog dowdified the quote it chose to feature from the Times article to leave out certain critical information that David S. Cloud felt was important enough to dedicate the second paragraph of the article to—namely that a final decision had not been made to re-deploy these soldiers—but the blog then focused the rest of its post on lamenting that the soldiers don't have the "right" rifles.

Unlike the Carpetbagger Report treatment of the Times article, I'll provide you with their full rifle-related original commentary:

As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s the equipment problem weighing heavily on the military. Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, told the NYT that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.

Think about that — National Guard troops are training for another quick deployment, but some of these soldiers don’t even have the right rifles yet. Body armor and Humvee protection is one thing, but Guard troops don’t have the rifles they want?

It’s unfortunately part of a trend.

The Politico reported today that military officials have given lawmakers “a long list of equipment and reconstruction needs totaling nearly $36 billion, denied earlier by the administration in its $481 billion defense appropriations request for the new fiscal year.”

The Army and Marine Corps say they need more than 5,000 armored vehicles, another $153 million for systems that defend against the deadly improvised explosive devices in Iraq and $13 million in language translation systems.

In an annual exercise initiated by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the military service chiefs were asked to forward spending priorities for the new 2008 fiscal year that either Pentagon budget planners or White House budget officials struck from the services’ original requests. Lawmakers use the list to gauge where military commanders see shortfalls and to justify additions to the appropriations. […]

The Army’s $10.3 billion list includes $2.2 billion for 2,500 special vehicles to better protect troops against roadside bomb attacks.

Murtha’s “readiness strategy” is premised on the argument that troops with inadequate training and equipment shouldn’t be sent to Iraq. With this in mind, expect today’s reports to play a big role in the congressional debate. I can’t wait to hear to hear war supporters argue that National Guard troops who currently don’t even have the right rifles should be deployed anyway.

Now that we've heard the complaint about having the "right" rifles, let's take a look at exactly what we're discussing.

This is the M4 carbine:

The most common variant is chambered to shoot 5.56X45mm NATO ammunition out of a 14.5" barrel, has a 14.5" sight radius, and has a multi-position collapsible stock. It weighs in at 5.9 lbs (empty). Bullets leave the barrel at 2,900 ft/sec and generate 1645 joules of energy at the muzzle (Data from Colt Weapons Systems).

The M4 is the weapon many soldiers prefer for its compactness, lower weight, and adaptability.

This is the M16 rifle:

The most common variant is chambered to shoot 5.56X45mm NATO ammunition out of a 20" barrel, has a 19.75" sight radius, and has a fixed stock. It weighs in at 7.5 lbs (empty). Bullets leave the barrel at 3,100 ft/sec and generate 1765 joules of energy at the muzzle (Data from Colt Weapons Systems).

This combat-proven basic configuration and its updates have been the primary combat rifle for the American military for four decades.

Now, the Carpetbagger Report has somehow determined, using some leap of illogic, that the "preferred" M4 is the "right rifle," though how they came to that conclusion is never explained.

The operating mechanisms, rate of fire (700-950 rounds per minute) and ammunition of these two weapons are nearly identical; the primary difference between the two weapons is the barrel of the M4 is 5.5" (27.5%) shorter than that of the M16.

The shorter barrel length and overall shorter weapon length of the M4 (also due to the multi-position collapsible stock) of the M4 makes the weapon extremely popular ("preferred") by many of our soldiers, as does it's lighter weight. But many does not mean all, and it does not mean right, and that shorter weapon has some serious drawbacks, among them, a serious lack of "stopping power."

Without getting to bogged down in the technical aspects, the M16 and M4 issued to our military use the standard 5.56x45 NATO round; the 5.56 being a militarized, higher pressure/higher velocity version of the .223 Remington cartridge. The .223 Remington is , as Wikipedia correctly notes, a slightly enlarged and higher velocity version of the .222 Remington.

What is the primary avocation of the .222 and .223 Remington rounds?

Shooting creatures like these guys:

As you may well imagine, a cartridge developed from a family of cartridges designed to shoot small, lightly-armored woodland creatures has developed a reputation as having problems stopping much larger and occasionally armored humans. That problem is compounded in shorter-barrelled weapons such as the M4:

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. Typically, this only becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 meters) but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch barrel of the U.S. military's M4 Carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is extremely effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk to bystanders when used at close range. However, if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a target is greatly reduced.

I've spoken with several soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg shortly after they returned from deployments to Iraq, and the lack of stopping power of the M4 was a significant complaint. On soldier I spoke with had just completed a tour in Ramadi, and mentioned that he had shot one insurgent in the chest three times as he advanced, and it took a fourth shot to the head to finally end the threat. He was armed with an M4, and despised the weapon’s poor stopping power.

Also armed with the M4 were the soldiers of the "Deuce Four" Stryker Brigade Michael Yon wrote about in Gates of Fire, where:

Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man's abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser.

Prosser then engaged the man in heated hand-to-hand combat before finally prevailing over a man he'd already shot four times. The terrorist, 50% less fertile than before, was captured, and survived his wounds.

The simple fact of the matter is that the M4 may be "preferred" by some troops, but because of its record of dubious stopping power, it is not the favorite of all, leading to some soldiers preferring the M16, while others prefer modernized variations of the Vietnam-era M14 battle rifle. Because of the M4's anemic stopping power, there has been rushed special operations development of more powerful cartridges for elite forces, including the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendal, and the .50 Beowulf, to pick up where the 5.56 M4 falls short.

Clearly, there is a huge gap between "preferred" and "right," and millions of dollars have been poured into the development of weapons and cartridges precisely because many in the military community feel that the M4 is not the "right" rifle as the Carpetbagger Report argues from a position of ignorance.

The Duke Lacrosse Player The Media Won't Focus On

Mary Katharine Ham posts a touching tribute to Army Ranger Jimmy Regan... the ultimate Duke lacrosse player, killed by a roadside bomb on February 9 in northern Iraq his fourth combat tour.

Regan's mourning father notes:

"What is written in the papers and what is being politicized out there by our candidates is undermining our service," said James Regan, a senior vice president at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a Manhattan financial services investment bank.

"These gentlemen that are out there are mission-focused," he said of the troops. "They're trying to do the best job they possibly can. There have been mistakes made, why even list them? ... You cannot put men in the field of battle and then change your mind and go out as a whip-dog. Let the men do their job."

I'm fairly certain that last line was directed at Okinawa Jack, Blinky Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats that are desperately trying to think of ways to lose the war in Iraq.

Make sure you read the whole thing.

Chicago Cousins Plotted Iraqi Terror Attacks

And then there were five:

Two cousins were arrested here Wednesday on charges of conspiring to commit terrorist acts against American military personnel in Iraq, as well as others abroad, in an Islamic holy war against the United States and its allies.

The defendants, Zubair A. Ahmed, 27, and Khaleel Ahmed, 26, were taken into custody at their Chicago homes after a federal grand jury in Cleveland returned a fresh indictment in a pending terrorism case in which three Ohio men are already awaiting trial in Toledo.

The new indictment accuses the two Chicago men of plotting with the Ohioans “to kill or maim persons in locations outside of the United States,” including members of the armed forces serving in Iraq.

I'm going out on a limb and guessing they didn't vote Bush/Cheney in '04.

Experts Warn British Drawdown Could Lead to Violence

I thought folks like John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi were telling us that a withdrawal from Iraq would result in a peaceful nation of lollipops and bunnies.

Obviously, I misunderstood:

Britain's planned reduction in its force in southern Iraq could empower Iran and lead to more bloodshed between rival Shiite Muslim groups, analysts warned Wednesday.

The area around Basra is less violent than Baghdad, and sectarian killings are rare, in part because it is overwhelmingly Shiite. But the government's authority there is rivaled by armed groups that are "thoroughly intertwined with criminal enterprises," according to a report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"In the coming year, the drawdown of British forces in the deep south will likely be accompanied by an upsurge of factional violence as the long-delayed fight for local supremacy begins in earnest," said the report, written by Iraq security specialists Michael Knights and Ed Williams.

Of course, these guys are just Iraq security specialists, so they probably don't know near as much as Okinawa Jack and Blinky.

Raceless Female Raped by Raceless Male at a Party Hosted By a Raceless Fraternity in the Same City Where Rich White Boys Raped A Poor Black Stripper

I'd provide more details, but the News & Observer still can't seem to find any.

Update: It's even more ironic when you consider the N&O headline: "Warrant reveals details in rape case."

Another One Down

Undercover Israeli soldiers disguised as Palestinians ambushed and killed Mahmoud Abu Obeid today, a leader of either the Islamic Jihad if you want to listen to U.S news media, or a leader of the Al-Quds Brigades if you'd rather trust Palestine Today.

The second account provides the details:

Eyewitness reports said that an undercover Israeli army unit entered the city using a civilian car with Palestinian license plates. Troops shot Abu Obeid at close range in the city center in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Witnesses added that after the troops shot Abu Obeid from the car, one of the unit members walked out of the car and shot Abu Obeid a few more times to confirm his death. During Abu Obeid's funeral, the Islamic Jihad said it would have revenge on his assassins. Israeli army sources claimed that Abu Obeid was planning what they described as a large-scale bombing in Tel Aviv.

Paul Campos could not be reached for comment, as he is currently drowning in his own embarrassment.

"Beclowning" must really hurt.

Back to the Board

Last Thursday, I provided Associated Press Media Relations Director Linda Wagner with confirmation that a January 4 Steven R. Hurst article appears to be 180-degrees from the truth. To date, neither Wagner nor any other AP contact has deemed to provide any sort of response. Frankly, I didn't expect one. The Hurst article was a CYA piece written to provide cover for shoddy Associated Press reporting, and it is not in their personal interests to admit that they've been caught apparently fabricating that story from the ground up.

I've thus resorted to contacting several members of the AP Board of Directors with the following letter sent out just moments ago, hoping that they will display the integrity that neither AP reporters nor senior management seem to have any interest in maintaining.

If they decline to investigate this extended "Jayson Blair" moment, then their integrity and credibility as a news organization, to put it mildly, is shot.

Here is a copy of the letter, with links added for context and HTML formatting added:

Julie Inskeep
Publisher
The Journal Gazette
Fort Wayne, Indiana
jinskeep@jg.net

David Lord
President
Pioneer Newspapers, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
dlord@pioneernewspapers.com

R. John Mitchell
Publisher
Rutland Herald
Rutland, Vermont
john.mitchell@rutlandherald.com

Jon Rust
Publisher
Southeast Missourian
Co-president, Rust Communications
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
jrust@semissourian.com

William Dean Singleton
Vice Chairman and CEO
MediaNews Group Inc.
Denver, Colorado
deansingleton@medianewsgroup.com

Jay R. Smith
President
Cox Newspapers, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
Jay.Smith@coxinc.com

Dear Publisher Inskeep, President Lord, Publisher Mitchell, Publisher Rust, CEO Singleton, and President Smith:

I write to you today as members of the Board of Directors for the Associated Press. I have uncovered conclusive evidence that The January 4, 2007 article by Associated Press reporter Steven R. Hurst titled "Iraq threatens arrest of police captain who spoke to media" is highly deceptive to the point I think that most reasonable people would consider it an outright lie.

The post is currently online here:

http://www.ap.org/FOI/foi_010407a.html

In that post, Hurst states:

"The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

"Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.

"The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.

"The U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry raised the doubts about Hussein in questioning the veracity of the AP's initial reporting on the incident, and the Iraqi ministry suggested that many news organization were giving a distorted, exaggerated picture of the conflict in Iraq. Some Internet bloggers spread and amplified these doubts, accusing the AP of having made up Hussein's identity in order to disseminate false news about the war.

"Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein's existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record."

People who read the report are led to believe that Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf confirmed that AP's source is named Jamil Gholaiem Hussein. BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf did no such thing.

In fact, on January 11, LT. Michael Dean, LT, US Navy assigned to Multi-National Corps-Iraq Public Affairs forwarded to me and several other bloggers the following an email from Bill Costlow, a civilian liaison with the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT) working with the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad. The email said, in part (my bold):

"Seems like every time I talk to somebody about this guy, his name changes. His personnel record says his name is: Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX [name redacted for blog publication -ed.]. Spokesman BG Abdul-Kareem has spoken with members of the AP in Baghdad and has confirmation that he is their source."

Note the last line in that paragraph. BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf did not confirm that the AP source was named Jamil Hussein. Quite to the contrary, AP reporters confirmed that the AP source was not Jamil Hussein, but was instead a man named Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX. To put it quite bluntly, Hurst's article is a categorical and blatant lie.

I followed up on this email, and got the following direct quote from BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf, forwarded to me by Bill Costlow, the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT) liaison to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, on February 15:

"We couldn't identify CPT Jamil right away because the AP used the wrong name: we couldn't find a "CPT Jamil Hussein" — but later, when we saw the name "Jamil Gulaim Hussein", it became obvious that they were talking about CPT Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX" as the only 'Jamil Gulaim' assigned there (ever) and whose assignment records show he previously worked in Yarmouk, as also reported by the AP. Since the issue for us is the release of false news into the media, we're satisfied that the AP is no longer quoting a questionable source."

The General flatly states that Jamil Hussein is not Jamil Hussein as AP still contends, but is instead, CPT Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX.

Multiple levels of Associated Press employees, from stringers in the field in Iraq all the way up to Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, International Editor Daniszewski, and Media Relations Director Linda Wagner, may have been knowingly perpetuating this pseudonym, and in essence, participating in a long-running fabrication.

They have apparently been deceiving Associated Press readers worldwide for over a month, and perhaps for as long as two years, if they knew his actual identity from the beginning.

AP Media Relations Director Linda Wagner was provided Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf’s direct quote for comment on the morning of February 15, but has declined to respond this far.

I have in my possession Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf's phone number for a direct confirmation of these charges, and I will gladly provide you with that number.

The Associated Press lied about the identity of Jamil Hussein, and still persists in maintaining this fabrication.

As readers and consumers of news provided by the Associated Press, we deserve a full retraction of the deceptive January 4 Steven R. Hurst article, an investigation of how long this willful deception has been on-going, and a formal apology. It is past time for the Associated Press to live up to these words in "The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles:"

"In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

"That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

"It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

"It means we don't plagiarize.

"It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.

"It means we don't misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.

"It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.

"It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.

"And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously."

A serious question has been raised regarding the apparent fabrication of a self-serving Associated Press claim, one that the management of the Associated Press seems to have no inclination to correct.

As members of the Board of Directors for the Associated Press, you have the responsibility to fully investigate this matter. If you decline to do so, your stated values and principles will be revealed for merely empty, self-serving words.

Respectfully,

Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

Regular readers many note that I've approached these members of the Associated Press Board of Directors in the past to address problems with the AP's Hurriyah reporting, where the AP still maintains that 24 people died in mosque attacks on November 24, 2006, even though no bodies have ever been recovered, and despite the fact that photographic evidence shows conclusively that an "inferno" at one mosque where AP wrote that 18 people died, frankly, never burned at all.

I therefore have very little confidence that even the clear lies printed about what Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf actually said will be addressed by the AP Board of Directors, though I welcome you to use the email addresses provided above to let your dissatisfaction with the quality of the AP's reporting on this matter be known.

The Associated Press published an apparent bald-faced lied on January 4, and has made no noticeable effort to atone for that most egregious of journalistic sins.

BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf never said AP's source was Jamil Hussein. Instead, AP reporters confirmed to him that their sources name was Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX. The story Hurst published was in direct opposition to what BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf says occurred.

The Associated Press apparently fabricated a cover-up. The only question is just how high up that cover-up goes.

Nuts

After Tom Elia tipped me to the story of a liberal stalker attacking a couple of Republican roommates after tracking them down from a Republican web site, I decided to take a commenter's advice and attempt to see if there was any sort of commentary about the arrest on the Democratic Underground.

Nice folks.

I didn't run across any reference to stalker boy, but I did run across a lovely comment related to Prince Harry, the British heir and Army officer intent on deploying to Iraq with the rest of his unit.

What does the DUer smell?

CONSPIRACY!

This has probably been suggested before But it occurs to me that this would give bush* a very good way of getting the british public more on-side in the 'war on terrorism'.

"PRINCE HARRY KILLED BY AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS" would be a lovely headline for bush*.

What surprises me the most about this comment? They made it all the way down to the sixth comment before implicating the President in a conspiracy to murder the Prince.

They must finally be starting to warm up to him.

Because One Jimmy Carter Isn't Enough

It appears that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan were right for the Edwards campaign after all:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Catholics offended? check.
Christians offended? check.
Jews offended? check.

Johnny Haircut's had a pretty busy month.

Fire the Puppy-Blending Murdering Fascists!

Fresh off of his masterful exercise in self-deception declaring that Iranian nuclear scientists and apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect members cannot be targeted for precision killings, and by default, therefore must be killed by a conventional heavy bombing campaign that will kill dozensof real civilians, University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos has determined that it is also unethical to hunt dear with precision firearms, and suggested a more appropriate response.

Run Bambi, run!

Far more serious debunkings of Campos' legally illiterate screed are available here, here, and less directly, here.

Armageddon-it-on

Am I alone in thinking that the only real apparent benefit of United Nations involvement in this project is the threat that if Apophisians don't find a way to change course away from Earth, that they might be subject to rape?

Desperate Insurgents Detonate Chemical Bomb

A chemical tanker carrying chlorine gas and equipped with a bomb killed 5-6 Iraqi civilians and injured over 100 when detonated outside a restaurant in the Iraqi town of Taji:

A tanker carrying chlorine gas exploded Tuesday morning outside a restaurant in the Iraqi town of Taji, killing at least six people, an Interior Ministry official said. At least 105 other people were either injured by the blast or poisoned by the fumes.

The official said a bomb on board the tanker caused the explosion.

Baghdad Security plan spokesman Gen. Qassim Atta had different casualty figures, telling state-run al-Iraqiya TV that five people died in the blast and 148 were poisoned by the gas.

Taji is located about 12 miles (20 km) north of Baghdad.

Somewhat ironically, Taji was home to a Saddam-era airfield and Iraqi Republican Guard base that had a large complex used to manufacture chemical weapons. UNSCOM found 6,000 canisters at the base that would have been filled with chemical weapons for 122mm rockets. In 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors found that the Iraqis had loaded VX nerve agent into missile warheads prior to the 1990-91 Gulf War for apparent use against the coalition, but these weapons were never used.

The use of a chemical bomb in Iraq is a new escalation for the Sunni insurgency, and one that may indicate a certain level of desperation for those who would use a weapon that comes with such a stigma. Based upon the nature of the weapon, it's location, and its target (a civilian restaurant) is reasonable to make the assumption that the remnants of what used to be al Qaeda in Iraq, which has folded along with other collapsing Sunni insurgent groups into an organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq, is behind the bombing.

The group was created last year as coalition forces continued to decimate various elements of the Sunni insurgency, and the survivors decided to come together "to unify their efforts and coordinate attacks" in a futile effort to establish a Sunni caliphate within Iraq under Sharia law.

Last August, al Qaeda in Iraq "oveplayed its hand" when it murdered Sheik Khalid of the Albu Ali Jassim tribe, and in response, Sunni tribes have been actively hunting and killing insurgents in a movement of Sunni tribes known as "the Awakening."

Since then, al Qaeda and its increasingly fewer affiliate Islamists has more often been the hunted than the hunter, and the use of a chemical bomb today hints at the level of desperation they have now reached.

While the western media is almost certain to interpret the attack as an increase in the level of violence to counter the "surge" of American and Iraqi troops and implementation of the the Petraeus plan designed to crush the remaining al Qaeda strongholds, it is doubtful they will recognize, much less publicize, the level of desperation that the Sunni Islamists militants in Iraq have reached to use a weapon that can only diminish their collapsing support.

al Qaeda in Iraq is dying, and there is a noticeable feeling that momentum is shifting no only in Iraq, but at home, to finish this war with victory (h/t Instapundit).

The Sunni Islamists in Iraq are becoming ever more desperate. The war in Iraq is far from over, but there seems little chance that these elements of the insurgency, increasing turned upon by the very Sunni tribes that once made up their base of support, will survive as any sort of cohesive force.

Update: Hot Air reminds us that this was not the first attempt to detonate a chemical bomb, just the first successful attempt.

More Fauxtography

You would think that after the downfall of Adnan Hajj that the professional media would have developed a sharper eye for noticing crudely PhotoShopped photographs, but even though Charles Johnson and others debunked a crude Iranian PhotoShop purporting to show U.S. munitions being used to subvert the government of Iran over the weekend, it didn't keep the ever-gullible L.A. Times from running the photo today.

Bloggers did a good job showing the PhotoShopping faults that Times photo editors should have quickly and rather easily caught, but simply doing a Google image search should have quickly proven the rifle ammunition claim questionable.

The ammunition box in the Iranian PhotoShop shows the front of a box of ammunition with the words "CAL. 7.62x39mm 123 GR. BALL" and the distinctive Winchester USA brand logo on the right side of the box. Here is the photo with the ammunition box isolated as it appeared on LGF:

Here's the thing: The Winchester USA brand ammunition I'm familiar with (I sell it in multiple calibers) doesn't look anything like the box on the photo. Typically, when ammunition is stacked, the top of the box is obscured, and so most ammunition manufacturers, including Winchester, put the caliber of the bullets on the end of the box, as seen here in a picture of showing the common packaging of a box of Winchester USA brand 7.62x39mm ammunition.

Is it reasonable for the photo editors of national news organizations to do some rudimentary checking to make sure pictures they publish aren't crudely PhotoShopped propaganda? You would think so, as that would seem to cut to the heart of their job responsibilities these days where image manipulation is now available to the masses.

It seems reasonable that if a news organization is going to run a picture of a certain building that they might want to take steps to make sure that is the building pictured, and so it seems reasonable that if they are going to run pictures from a foreign regime purporting to contain U.S. bullets and munitions, that they would do some basic fact checking to see if the bullets are in the correct packaging, and perhaps they should check to see if the grenades in the photo aren't Russian.

It isn't rocket science to check pictures for fauxtography, but it apparently eludes the best minds that the L.A. Times has to offer.

Update: Apparently, I'm not alone in keying in on the ammunition packaging. Outside the Wire has links to pictures showing the differences between military and civilian ammunition packaging.

As you might suspect, they aren't that subtle.

Update: YNET is now running with the story, and a reader states in the comments that the ammunition boxes shown in the Iranian story appears to be Winchester USA commericial (civilian) ammunition boxes from approximately 20 years ago.

Some smoking gun.

Update: Reader Don Jordan send along a couple of pictures of some 7.62x39mm Winchester USA ammunition he owns dating to 1994.

He thinks he saw box design used in the Iranian photo being sold around San Diego about 11-12 years ago. He also has a friend with an extensive collection of older 7.62x39mm Winchester USA ammunition who might be able to get a better handle on the date this particular civilian ammunition box design was in use.

Update: It looks like we can pin down the date of manufacture to circa 1993.

That spring, says reader Robert Miller, is when he got this Winchester USA 9mm ammunition that shows packaging indistinguishable from that used in the Iranian photo (nice background, Robert). The Iranians are claiming we're supplying their insurgency with economy civilian practice ammunition made about 14 years ago.

I'm less than impressed.

Onward Christian Soldiers

The Jawa Report notes the canonization of "Saint Harry" today (h/t Hot Air) and provides examples of other, less flattering photo compositions of conservatives that made it on the front pages of media sites over the past few years.

With that as a guide, I must wonder: does this count as another example of biased photo composition?

The blurred object in the background bears a resemblence to the Maltese Cross carried into battle by Christian warriors since the first Crusade.

Now, the media would never use a creative photo angle or strategic photo composition imply that Vice President Cheney is carrying on a crusade against Islam, would it?

Heavens, no.

Surge Impact in Baghdad

A source in Iraq has forwarded me a copy of the DynCorp CIVPOL Intel Report from Feb 15-16, which shows the kind of impact that the "surge" in Baghdad is having on the various Sunni insurgency and Shia militia elements operating there.

DynCorp is a United States-based private military contractor which helps train police in both Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to providing teams of military contractors in other theaters. According to Wikipedia, DynCorp also assisted recovery efforts in Louisiana and neighboring areas after Hurricane Katrina.

From the summary:

There was a total of 24 incidents reported during this period, which was the lowest total recorded in over a year. The low total can be linked not only to the new security plan but the torrential rain during the evening of the 15th which severely hampered the emplacement of IEDs. Several reports through open media sources state that insurgents continued to attempt to disrupt the new security plan with the use of IDF, IEDs and VBIEDs and they had little, if any, effect to slow the US-Iraqi program.

During the review period, US and Iraqi forces pushed deeper into Sunni militant strongholds in Baghdad, where cars rigged with explosives greeted their advance. In the Doura District two parked cars wired with explosives were triggered as a joint US-Iraqi patrol rolled past. The convoy was unharmed, but the blast killed at least four civilians and wounded 15. The explosions did little to disrupt the security sweep attempting to weaken militia groups' ability to fight US-allied forces (as well as each other). Most of the latest resistance has come from Sunni factions, which perceive their Saddam Hussein-era influence slipping away as the majority Shiites extend their political force and bolster ties to Iran. The Pentagon hopes its current campaign of arrests and arms seizures will convince average Iraqis that militiamen are losing ground.

A leader of the main Sunni bloc in parliament, Adnan al-Dulaimi, claimed the US-led sweeps have "started to attack" mostly Sunni areas. "It should concentrate on those who are perpetrating the violence and terrorist acts in all districts," he said; an apparent reference to the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.

Throughout the capital, US and Iraqi soldiers set up dozens of roadway checkpoints and conducted top-to-bottom searches of vehicles and motorbikes. Generally the public’s sentiment is that they are willing to put up with delays so long as the security sweep shows some results after bombings that have killed hundreds of civilians this year.

The US military said that five suspected militants had been detained and numerous pistols, rifles, AK-47s and small arms munitions seized during searches of more than 3,000 structures since an operation began Tuesday in mainly Shiite northeastern Baghdad. It also said clearing operations were continuing in the predominantly Sunni northern neighborhood of Adhamiyah.

According to ministry officials, The number of Iraqi civilians killed in Baghdad's sectarian violence fell drastically during the review period, crediting the joint US-Iraqi security operation that began in force just days ago. Iraqi army Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the Baghdad commander, said only 10 bodies had been reported by the morgue in the capital, compared to an average of 40 to 50 per day.

Two charts in the report show the overall decreasing level of violence in Baghdad over the timeframes of 01-02 Feb through 15-16 Feb, and 09-10 Feb through 15-16 Feb respectively.

The abbreviations in the chart above are for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), small arms fire (SAF), indirect fire (IDF - typically meaning mortars), and COMP which, quite frankly, has me stumped.

The report also mentions a tantalizing vehicle heist believed orchestrated by the Madhi Army, which may hint that another attack on coalition forces like the Karbala incident thought to have been carried out by Iranian Quds Force commandos that saw U.S. soldiers kidnapped and killed in a sophisticated raid, may be on the horizon:

DynCopr Armored vehicles stolen by Madhi Army-Bumper numbers A223 (Black Suburban) and A 60 (Green Chevy Suburban). Vehicles stolen while enroute from FOB Warhorse-May possibly be used in attck [sic] similar to Karbala or as VBIEDs.

Obviously, this report does not address the most recent attacks 30 miles north of Baghad, which occurred after this report was released, nor the smattering of attacks inside Baghad itself over the weekend.

Jules Crittenden notes how the media seems to be hoping and waiting for a Tet Offensive type attack:

This raises a question I’ve been wondering about. We’ve seen surge results, and we’ve seen the brief peace broken. No surprise here. Obviously it is to the benefit of the enemy to paint the surge as a failure, and well with the enemy’s capability to keep launching attacks. They can continue launching sporadic attacks as they are able, and the Surrender Camp will seize on them as signs of failure.

An attack like this on a base is an attention grabber, but it doesn’t sound like it involved a human wave assault, and for an alert and well-defended base, probably never threatened to amount to more than deadly harassment. Awaiting more details on that.

Is the enemy capable of anything like Tet-like offensive? I highly doubt it. No unified command and control; little cooperation among groups; nothing close to the necessary number of troops; and the U.S. is putting heavy pressure on all the leadership … al-Qaeda, Baathists, Mahdi Army, Iranians … everyone’s on the run. If anything, a campaign of coordinated frontal assaults would be a great opportunity to break the enemy … just as it did in Tet. The threat is political.

It is worth noting that the Tet Offensive Crittenden references was a crushing military defeat for the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies, that saw the Viet Cong in particular decimated and operationally crippled, and that it was the American media helped turn the route (an estimated 45,000 VC and NVA were killed, versus just 4,324 KIA for allied forces, roughly 2,800 of them South Vietnamese) into a propaganda victory for the North Vietnamese.

Despite more attacks by Sunni and Shia terrorists and Congressional Democrats led by John "Okinawa" Murtha, there is every indication that the Baghdad "surge" is having an impact at reducing the overall level of violence in Iraq's capital.

Let's just hope that we can see marked improvements that even the press can't deny before Democrats can organize a successful surrender.

CY On the Air

I'll be on KSFO 560 With Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan this morning, talking about the recent development in the AP's Jamil Hussein scandal, where Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf revealed that the Associated Press lied when they said he confirmed the identity of Jamil Hussein.

It turns out that AP reporters instead confirmed to General Abdul-Karim Khalaf that "Jamil Hussein" was just a pseudonym, and that the Associated Press has been lying to it's audience for weeks now, if not months.

Should make for some interesting radio.

You can listen via online streaming at 6:35 PST/9:25 EST at KSFO 560 via the "listen now" link.

Update: 6:35 PST/9:35 EST has come and gone, so it appears I've probably been bumped. That's talk radio for you. If I end up going on the air at another time, I'll let you know.

Democratic Change In Direction

"The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: we here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops,” Pelosi said. “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”

Meanwhile, U.S. and Iraqi troops faced little resistance as they continued on security sweeps, as the number of violent deaths in Baghdad plummeted from 40-50 a day to 10.

A Bad Place to Regroup

One doesn't have to be von Clausewitz to figure out that when folks start shooting at you, taking cover behind something that will stop bullets and shrapnel is probably in your best interests.

Taking cover within a concave bucket of a front-end loader that could deflect incoming fire into your body, though... probably not the best idea.

I Hate You; Why Don't You Like Me?

For whatever reason, Salon.com picked up Amanda Marcotte's latest blameshifting attempt at dodging responsibility for her long track record of anti-Christian bigotry.

Marcotte is as tedious, suspicious, angrily self-righteous, and blissfully unaware of her own culpability as we've come to expect. Following her same tired script, she blames the "patriarchy" and the "right wing smear machine" for her downfall.

Frankly, I'd skip the article itself and read the other blog reaction to the article. Marcotte can't quite seem to grasp that she came under fire as a result of her own bitter words, taken in context.

Iraqi General Disputes AP Claim on Jamil Hussein

Note: This is a background article to the exclusive posted today at Pajamas Media.

From the very beginning of the controversy surrounding the Associated Press' coverage of a series of Shia militia attacks on Sunni homes and mosques in the Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad on November 24, 2006, Iraqi government officials, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, and bloggers have questioned the identity of one of the primary Associated Press sources for the accounts, an Iraqi Police Captain called Jamil Hussein.

The controversy erupted after the Public Affairs Office of Multi-National Corps-Iraq disputed claims made in the Associated Press articles, which claimed that four Sunni mosques in Hurriyah were "burned and blew up," and that 24 people had been killed in the attacks.

According an AP article released on November 24:

Revenge-seeking Shi'ite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post. The soldiers did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

A follow-up Associated Press article printed on November 25 stated:

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same neighborhood, the volatile Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

In the same article, a second source, a Sunni elder named Imad al-Hasimi:

...confirmed Hussein's account of the immolations. He told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were drenched in kerosene and then set afire, burning to death before his eyes.

When approached by investigators from the Iraqi Defense Ministry, al-Hasimi recanted his claim that six worshippers were pulled from the Mustafa mosque in Hurriyah, which an AP report by Steven R. Hurst confirmed in a November 28 article. Hurst seemed to imply that as Hasimi was pressured into recanting his testimony in a January 4th article where he stated that he recanted only after Defense Ministry investigators "paid him a visit," a loaded phrase often used in Hollywood accounts of mafia goons strong-arming the witnesses of crimes into silence.

AP later claimed that several anonymous sources in Hurriyah confirmed the claimed immolation attack to AP reporters, but these accounts could not be verified by any other news organization's reporters, including Baghdad correspondent Edward Wong of the New York Times:

When we first heard of the event on Nov. 24, through the A.P. story and a man named Imad al-Hashemi talking about it on television, we had our Iraqi reporters make calls to people in the Hurriya neighborhood. Because of the curfew that day, everything had to be done by phone. We reached several people who told us about the mosque attacks, but said they had heard nothing of Sunni worshippers being burned alive. Any big news event travels quickly by word of mouth through Baghdad, aided by the enormous proliferation of cell phones here. Such an incident would have been so abominable that a great many of the residents in Hurriya, as well as in other Sunni Arab districts, would have been in an uproar over it. Hard-line Sunni Arab organizations such as the Muslim Scholars Association or the Iraqi Islamic Party would almost certainly have appeared on television that day or the next to denounce this specific incident. Iraqi clerics and politicians are not shy about doing this. Yet, as far as I know, there was no widespread talk of the incident.

The Washington Post also spoke with two local imams, who denied the immolations took place.

On November 30, The Public Affairs Office, via email, dropped the bombshell that the Iraqi Interior Ministry had no record of a police officer by the name of Jamil Hussein.

Iraqi Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf later confirmed that statement in a press conference, which brought the following response from Associated Press International Editor John Daniszewski later that same day:

The Associated Press denounces unfounded attacks on its story about six Sunni worshipers burned to death outside their mosque on Friday, November 24. The attempt to question the existence of the known police officer who spoke to the AP is frankly ludicrous and hints at a certain level of desperation to dispute or suppress the facts of the incident in question.

AP reporters who have been working in Iraq throughout the conflict learned of the mosque incident through witnesses and neighborhood residents and corroborated it with a named police spokesmen and also through hospital and morgue workers.

We have conducted a thorough review of the sourcing and reporting involved and plan to move a more detailed report about the entire incident soon, with greater detail provided by multiple eye witnesses. Several of those witnesses spoke to AP on the condition that their names would not be used because they fear reprisals.

The police captain cited in our story has long been known to the AP reporters and has been interviewed in his office and by telephone on several occasions during the past two years.

He is an officer at the police station in Yarmouk, with a record of reliability and truthfulness. His full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein.

The AP stands by its story.

AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll then piled on, oddly:

We are satisfied with our reporting on this incident. If Iraqi and U.S. military spokesmen choose to disregard AP's on-the-ground reporting, that is certainly their choice to make, but it is a puzzling one given the facts.

AP journalists have repeatedly been to the Hurriyah neighborhood, a small Sunni enclave within a larger Shiia area of Baghdad. Residents there have told us in detail about the attack on the mosque and that six people were burned alive during it. Images taken later that day and again this week show a burned mosque and graffiti that says "blood wanted," similar to that found on the homes of Iraqis driven out of neighborhoods where they are a minority. We have also spoken repeatedly to a police captain who is known to AP and has been a reliable source of accurate information in the past and he has confirmed the attack.

By contrast, the U.S. military and Iraqi government spokesmen attack our reporting because that captain's name is not on their list of authorized spokespeople. Their implication that we may have given money to the captain is false. The AP does not pay for information. Period.

Further, the Iraqi spokesman said today that reporting on such atrocities "shows that the security situation is worse than it really is." He is speaking from a capital city where dozens of bodies are discovered every day showing signs of terrible torture. Where people are gunned down in their cars, dragged from their homes or blown apart in public places every single day.

At the end of the day, we have AP journalists with reporting and images from the actual neighborhood versus official spokesmen saying the story cannot be true because it is damaging and because one of the sources is not on a list of people approved to talk to the press. Good reporting relies on more than government-approved sources.

We stand behind our reporting.

Executive Editor Carroll's comments seem to say, "how dare they question us, the Associated Press."

Carroll followed up on December 8, 2006, strongly implying that forces in the Interior Ministry may be participating in a cover-up of the attacks because of sectarian influences, and implied that questioning the Associated Press accounts of the Hurriyah accounts, and Jamil Hussein's identity by bloggers, the Iraqi government, and Multi-National Corps- Iraq amounted to a witch hunt:

Some of AP's critics question the existence of police Capt. Jamil Hussein, who was one (but not the only) source to tell us about the burning.

These critics cite a U.S. military officer and an Iraqi official who first said Hussein is not an authorized spokesman and later said he is not on their list of Interior Ministry employees. It’s worth noting that such lists are relatively recent creations of the fledgling Iraqi government.

By contrast, Hussein is well known to AP. We first met him, in uniform, in a police station, some two years ago. We have talked with him a number of times since then and he has been a reliable source of accurate information on a variety of events in Baghdad.

No one – not a single person – raised questions about Hussein’s accuracy or his very existence in all that time. Those questions were raised only after he was quoted by name describing a terrible attack in a neighborhood that U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to make safe.

That neighborhood, Hurriyah, is a particularly violent section of Baghdad. Once a Sunni enclave, it now is dominated by gunmen loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Many people there talked to us about the attack, but clammed up when they realized they might be quoted publicly. They felt understandably nervous about bringing their accusations up in an area patrolled by a Shiite-led police force that they suspect is allied with the very militia accused in these killings...

As careful followers of the Iraq story know well, various militias have been accused of operating within the Interior Ministry, which controls the police and has long worked to suppress news of death-squad activity in its ranks. (This is the same ministry that questioned Capt. Hussein’s existence and last week announced plans to take legal action against journalists who report news that creates the impression that security in Iraq is bad, “when the facts are totally different.”)

The Iraqi journalists who work for the AP are smart, dedicated and incredibly courageous to go into the streets every day, talking to their countrymen and trying to capture a portrait of their home in a historic and tumultuous period.

The work is dangerous: two people who work for AP have been killed since this war began in 2003. Many others have been hurt, some badly.

Several of AP's Iraqi journalists were victimized by Saddam Hussein’s regime and bear scars of his torture or the loss of relatives killed by his goons. Those journalists have no interest in furthering the chaos that makes daily life in Iraq so perilous. They want what any of us want: To be able to live and work without fear and raise their children in peace and safety.

Questioning their integrity and work ethic is simply offensive.

It's awfully easy to take pot shots from the safety of a computer keyboard thousands of miles from the chaos of Baghdad.

The Iraq war is one of hundreds of conflicts that AP journalists have covered in the past 160 years. Our only goal is to provide fair, impartial coverage of important human events as they unfold. We check our facts and check again.

That is what we have done in the case of the Hurriyah attack. And that is why we stand by our story.

On January 4, 2007, AP reporter Steven R. Hurst announced the Iraqi Ministry Brigadier General Abdul-Kareem Khalaf had acknowledged that "Jamil Hussein" was indeed who the Associated Press said he was the entire time:

The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.

The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.

The U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry raised the doubts about Hussein in questioning the veracity of the AP's initial reporting on the incident, and the Iraqi ministry suggested that many news organization were giving a distorted, exaggerated picture of the conflict in Iraq. Some Internet bloggers spread and amplified these doubts, accusing the AP of having made up Hussein's identity in order to disseminate false news about the war.

On January 11, 2007, LT. Michael Dean, LT, US Navy assigned to Multi-National Corps-Iraq Public affairs forwarded to me and several other bloggers the following an email from Bill Costlow, a civilian liaison with the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT) working with the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad. The email said, in part (my bold):

Seems like every time I talk to somebody about this guy, his name changes. His personnel record says his name is: Jamil Gulaim Innad XX-XXXXXXX [name redacted- ed].

Spokesman BG Abdul-Kareem has spoken with members of the AP in Baghdad
and has confirmation that he is their source.

"BG Abdul-Kareem" was later confirmed in direct follow-up emails to Bill Costlow of CPATT as being the exact same Interior Ministry spokesman, Iraqi Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, cited by the January 4 Hurst article... but telling a quite different story about the identity of Jamil Hussein.

According to Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, not only was "Jamil Hussein" actually
Jamil Gulaim Innad XX-XXXXXXX, the AP itself confirmed this identity, and then apparently decided to print an apparently fictitious account saying that Jamil Hussein was Jamil Hussein.

I personally contacted Associated Press reporter Steven R. Hurst via email on January 11 to confirm Hussein's true identity with him, and instead, within 90 minutes, received the following email reply from Linda M. Wagner, Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for the Associated Press, which read in part:

Steve Hurst passed your e-mail inquiry along to me. AP stands by the story below, which provides the full name of the source whose existence was acknowledged to AP by Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf in an interview on Thursday, January 4. I have bolded the relevant passages for ease of finding them in the text.

I've since conducted follow-ups with CPATT liason to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, Bill Costlow, and he provided me this morning with the direct quote of Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf as noted in the Pajamas Media Exclusive.

A direct copy of Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf's quote was forwarded to Linda Wagner of the Associated Press this morning, asking her if the Associated Press still stood behind Hurst's January 4th article, now that that article has been contradicted by their own source.

Thus far Wagner has declined to respond. If she so desires, she can contact me for Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf's phone number for confirmation of this quote.

I think he is expecting her call.

How to Fail at Suicide Bombing

According to Liveleak.com, this VBIED suicide bomber survived an attack on American forces in Baghdad... briefly.

He wasn't the only one who failed (content warning for language).

Funny how the failed suicide bombings and foiled IED attacks rarely get reported in the media, isn't it?

Bonus: Some pre-release footage from Pat Dollard's documentary, Young Americans.

Copperheads Decide on How to Define Screw 'Em

Lacking the moral courage to simply vote against the war in Iraq, House Democrats are instead working with anti-war groups--no doubt including the collection of Islamists and Marxists profiled here--to impose limitations that would reduce the number of U.S troops available for duty, putting American soldiers at risk as they plot their strategy for defeat:

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Frankly, I'm not sure how we should respond when members of our own political class proudly declare that they are admitting to planning a "D-Day" against our own military.

Gaius, who has a son currently deployed in Iraq, is not happy:

They frankly do not care how much damage they do to the United States in their blind lust for political power, do they? They frankly don't care that they will, in effect, tie the hands of the military commanders with this strategy.

No, they don't, because in their eyes, victory is not an option.

Duke's Incredible Disappearing Rape Case

No, this has nothing to do with the collapsing case brought by a stripper against members of the Duke lacrosse team, but instead, a newly alleged rape of a white Duke student by a black male during a party in the fraternity house of Phi Beta Sigma, an African-American fraternity at Duke.

If you haven't heard of it, it may be because the same media, university administrators and Duke faculty that pre-judged the lacrosse players guilty seem to have be purposefully silent, and perhaps for all the wrong reasons.

While I can hope that those who attacked the Lacrosse team have simply learned a lesson on prejudging a case in which the details are far from known, the fact that local media purposefully sanitized accounts of the alleged crime to remove the race of the attacker leads me to beleive we may simply be witnessing a shameful double standard.

Psy-Ops?

Reports issued last night saying that the man dubbed "Mullah Atari" for his video game addictions, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, may have fled from Iraq to Tehran, are being disputed:

The chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq said Wednesday that Muqtada al-Sadr has left the country and is believed to be in Iran, despite denials from the radical Shiite cleric's supporters. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell declined to comment on the reasons al-Sadr had left the country or give more details.

"We will acknowledge that he is not in the country and all indications are in fact that he is in Iran," Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad.

Lawmakers and officials linked to al-Sadr have denied that he had left the country, with one saying the cleric had met with government officials late Tuesday in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

An Iraqi government official said al-Sadr was in Najaf as recently as Tuesday night, when he received delegates from several government departments. The official, who is familiar with one of those meetings, spoke on condition of anonymity because he has no authority to disclose information on his department's activities.

Lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of Sadrist bloc in parliament, also insisted al-Sadr had not left the country.

"The news is not accurate because Muqtada al-Sadr is still in Iraq and he did not visit any country," al-Rubaie told The Associated Press.

The charge, accurate or not, could have the following ramifications.

• If he has already fled, his credibility drops. It will be very difficult for him to retain any political credibility or inspire his followers while hiding in another country, and he might never be able to regain his prestige.
• If still in Iraq, it makes it far more difficult for al-Sadr to leave. If Al-Sadr is still in Iraq as alleged by his followers, political pressure from his own supporters will make it far more difficult for him to actually flee without suffering severe penalties, perhaps dissolving his credibility entirely among both his political allies and his militant followers
• Locking him in to staying makes his capture or death more likely. Despite the near-hysterical shrieking of the fringe left, the Bush Administration has made it abundantly clear that they would prefer to no engage Iran in a war, so if al-Sadr made it to Tehran, he would be far out of U.S. reach. As long as he is in Iraq—perhaps kept there by a fear of becoming marginalized if he fled—then he will be much easier to target, should coalition forces decide that he needs to be taken down.

Whether this is a psychological operation or not is nearly irrelevant at this point. Al-Sadr is now on the defensive, which is precisely where the coalition prefers him to be.

A Shred More Class

Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister has followed Amanda Marcotte in resigning from the John Edwards Presidential train wreck:

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

I don't think I've read enough of her blog to know much about McEwan, but I can say this: she exhibited more class and dignity than Marcotte, even as I find it somewhat ironic that someone who calls my fellow Christians "christofascists" accuses others of unleashing "frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation."

They did denounce the frightening ugliness, Melissa. You should know.

You wrote much of it yourself.

Spin Job

Ask not to whom the AP lies: it lies to thee.

Iran Implicated

06-13-2007 Update: This Daily Telegraph story now appears to be all but completely fabricated. Burning the Smoking Gun.

This is the Steyr HS50, a single-shot bolt-action rifle of the shell-holder type, chambered in .50 BMG. You can get one if you pass a NICS background check and have $5,599.99 to spare (or you can get it on sale for$3,999.99), plus another $1,000 or more for one of the handful of scopes than can withstand the recoil of such a rifle, and of course, the cash needed for the custom-made .50 BMG cartridges these rifles digest (military-grade 50 BMG ammo, designed for machine guns, is not designed for the long-range accuracy these precision rifles demand).

Field & Stream had a nice write up about the growing number of American shooters who use rifles of this caliber and design for long-range marksmanship competitions and hunting.

Today's article in the U.K. Telegraph is far more disturbing. It seems that Iran purchased 800 of the Steyr HS50 rifles pictured above in 2006, and to date, more than 100 have been captured in Iraq.

Say hello to the smoking gun.

Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.

The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported.

It will be very difficult for Iran's apologists on the American far left to call these captured rifles "spurious" evidence or "groundless assertions and half-truths." The fact that 12% of the rifles purchased by Iran have been captured in Iraq sure sounds like evidence as strong as "videotape of the Ayatollah Khamenei himself attaching tailfins to one of these things and putting it in a box labeled "Baghdad -- ASAP."

No doubt Huffington Post contributer Cenk Uygur will soon be breathlessly telling us that since he's never heard of the country of Iran, this can't be true.

No, there is no way that the apologist left can blame this on the "Bush regime." Iran's government officially purchased these long-range rifles, and within 45 days of their delivery, one of these rifles was used to kill an American soldier in Iraq.

As Ed Morrissey stated this morning:

Pardon the pun, but this is literally the smoking gun. We can trace these weapons from its manufacturer directly to the Iranian government. The quantity in which they have been found in insurgent bases precludes any explanation that a few just got mislaid; they obviously have been transferred from an Iranian state organization to the terrorists in Iraq. It's the clearest evidence of Iranian involvement in attacks on Americans. The involvement of the mullahcracy is undeniable, and it is a direct retort to those who keep claiming that Iran has no stake in Iraqi instability.

The question of course, is what we can and should do in response to not only Iran's shipping these rifles into Iraq, but the heavier weapons, such as Iranian-manufactured 81mm mortar ammunition and Iranian-manufactured Explosively-formed projectiles (EFPs) that have been used by insurgents to kill more than 170 coalition soldiers.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit offers suggestions:

We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs' expat business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping on the Iranians' toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq.

Hugh Hewitt, upon reading Reynolds' post, comments:

If we know that Iran is killing American soldiers, if we don't punish that action is some way, the killing will not only continue, it will increase.

Hewitt's comment is as dead-on accurate as one of the .50 BMG bullets Iran is putting in the hands of anti-Iraqi forces. Unless the Iranian government is made to feel the pain of supplying arms, money, training, and personnel to fight America soldiers and the Iraqi government, then they will continue with their attacks.

Reynolds is also correct in his suggested approach of what I'd consider a "soft war" campaign of destabilizing the mullahcracy in Iran.

As I've noted in the past, the Hojjatieh sect presently running Iran is a cult of Shia Islam so extreme that Ayatollah Khomeini outlawed it in 1983. Their eschatology believes that the near-term messianic return of the 12th Imam can be brought about by an apocalyptic event, and it is reasonable to conclude that when aligned with their theology, the development of their nuclear weapons is being conducted with the express intent of triggering a nuclear war to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. If they are looking to trigger a war—both to get an increasingly dissatisfied Iranian population to rally behind them in the short term and to pursue their eschatological goals of bringing about some sort of apocalypse—the perhaps the worst thing we can do is engage them in open warfare.

I think we could certainly justify bombing EFP manufacturing facilities inside of Iran, but that might play into uniting the Iranian people behind their government; we don't want that.

No, Reynold's black-ops suggestions, and those like them, make far more sense, though the use of our massive economic and political power towards the same goal might be even more advantageous.

Economic pressure can be brought forth to decrease the cost of oil, weakening Iran's fragile economy which depends on its export, while other diplomatic and economic pressure can be brought to bear to make it far more difficult for Iran to purchase and import processed fuels. For a country rich in oil, Iran's refining capability is marginal at best, and it relies in imports of gasoline and diesel to keep the nation's economy afloat.

If the U.S. government were, for example, willing to pay a slightly higher price for these refined fuels that Iran was capable of paying for any sustained length of time (ostensibly to stock our own nation's reserves, of course), the application of supply-and-demand capitalism alone could potentially bring the pain that Iran must feel without a shot being fired.

Alternatively, if a more militant option is required, U.S. naval ships could enforce a blockade of fuels coming into Iran from the Gulf of Oman, far outside the range of Iran's military.

Diplomatically, if Iraqi Prime Minister were to forcefully condemn Iran's actions in supplying the insurgency within Iraq, he could justifiably accuse Iran of trying to overthrow a fellow Muslim government, an act that would put the Shia-run state of Iran in a diplomatic pickle in the overwhelming Sunni world Muslim community. Were Maliki to threat to ask other nations in the region for help, or even issue a toothless threat that Iranian actions in Iraq are viewed act of war against Iraq, he may be able to diplomatically put Iran on the defensive.

There are many ways to bring Iran to account for their war-making inside of Iraq, and perhaps the most effective options may not require direct military involvement.

Edwards' Bigoted Blogger Resigns

Just when it mattered least, Amanda Marcotte resigned from the John Edwards campaign:

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade [sic] of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

As ever, Marcotte just doesn't get it.

Bill Donohue may have been the catalyst bringing her anti-Christian, anti-Catholic bigotry to a national audience, but Amanda Marcotte was targeted because she was and is an unrepentant bigot, and for no other reason. Period.

Marcotte attempts to shift the blame to Bill Donohue, a bigot in his own right (his views on Judaism turn the stomach), but the reality is that Marcotte and Donohue are flip sides of the same vile coin.

Despite her protests, Marcotte's free speech was never curtailed. It was in fact her exercise of her free speech--her own bigoted words spread far and deep across her person blog over an extended period of time--that was responsible for the controversy surrounding her hiring. What Marcotte did not understand then, and either does not understand, or refuses to acknowledge now, is that free speech is not freedom from responsibility for those opinions you chose to exercise. Marcotte apparently thinks that "free speech" means she has the "right" to denigrate and offend others without those others having the ability to exercise those same free speech rights in protest. She wants freedom to be a critic without having that same critical eye cast in her direction. It is a double standard that she seeks, and nothing less.

Marcotte's resignation post also admits what many of us thought about her earlier apology. It was insincere; a blatant and calculated lie meant to excise her from criticism. She stated in her apology that:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.

Her statement now?

The main good news is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on.

Marcotte now admits that she only issued her apology on the Edwards blog in a cynical attempt to keep her job. She knew her comments on her personal blog were never "satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics." Now that she is free of the Edwards campaign, she fully intends to revert back to form. "It's on."

The problem for Amanda Marcotte isn't that the criticisms of her writings were baseless. The problem for Amanda Marcotte is that the criticisms exposed precisely who she is.

It remains now to be seen if Marcotte joins the Ku Klux Klan. Not for the bigotry, you understand.

She just seems to love the idea of a burning cross.

Update: More reaction from Ace, Bryan, Glenn, Joe, Jeff, and Michelle.

A good cross-section of blog reactions at Memeorandum.com.

Name That Weapon

Michael Yon has a question for his readers: What the heck is this?

As the Drudge link seems to have fried Yon's server momentarily, here's the low-resolution version he emailed me this morning as he was trying to ID it.

Photo property of Michael Yon. Swiped pending permission.

Funky, isn't it?

It looks fearsome, but don't plan on buying one: this homemade weapon was pulled from a captured ammunition cache in Iraq.

What is it? Here is what I told Mike this morning when he asked for my opinion:

I want to start by saying that without being able to get other angles and actually take the thing apart, what follows is purely unadulterated speculation, and perhaps laughably wrong.

That out of the way, I think my original, joking assessment calling this a potato gun might not be too far off.

This appears to have a crudely manufactuered wood front grip and stock, and the size of the holes in both to me suggest that they might have used nuts, bolts and washers to put this thing together... we're not talking a weapon designed by experts, or a weapon designed to handle much in the way of pressure. The welded together scope mount is probably not "true," and if you tried to adjust it, it would probably pull you off target. Based on what I can see, I'd suggest the scope is mostly for show, not performance.

The plunger-type trigger to me suggests a friction ignitor, once again suggesting a potato gun, as does the larger of the two tubes, which suggests a combusion chamber leading to the smaller front tube, which is the barrel.

With nothing else to go on, I really think it is a tater gun, though perhaps one with serious intentions.

If you've got a tube of sufficient strength to handle a decent amont of propellant without detonating, I'd guess it could be used as a crude launcher, perhaps being used to toss molotov cocktails a little further or with a little more velocity or accuracy. If it wasn't found in a cache, I'd think it was a complete joke.

Feel free to drop your guesses of what it might be used for in the comments.

None So Blind

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

--Various

Some of the deep thoughts of HuffPuffer Cenk Uygur, regarding the Iran weapons presentation released over the weekend:

Then the officials made the highly dubious claim that 170 US troops have been killed by these so-called Iranian weapons. Really? They CSI'ed the scene of all the troop deaths and found forensic evidence linking these weapons to exactly 170 deaths. I call bulls**t [edited].

During the demonstration they talked at length about these cylindrical pipes that shoot molten hot balls of copper through the armor of US vehicles. In all of the gruesome stories of our men and women dying in Iraq, I have never heard of this weapon before or any deaths being attributed to it.

Defensetech.org wrote about them being used by insurgents in Iraq on Aug 3, 2005. Other news organizations have written dozens of articles about them as well.

Perhaps Uygur has never heard of these weapons, but they're hardly new:

Explosively formed projectiles (EFP) have been used to defeat armored vehicles for more than 30 years.

What does the UK Telegraph have to say about EFPs? Quite a bit in this June 25, 2006 article alone:

The first picture of an Iraqi insurgent mine, believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers, has been obtained by The Sunday Telegraph.

The device, which has been used by insurgents throughout Iraq since May last year, fires an armour-piercing "explosively formed projectile" or EFP, also known as a shaped charge, directly into an armoured vehicle, inflicting death or terrible injuries on troops inside.

The weapon can penetrate the armour of British and American tanks and armoured personnel carriers and completely destroy armoured Land Rovers, which are used by the majority of British troops on operations in Iraq.

The device, described as an "off-route mine", was seized by British troops in Iraq earlier this year and brought back to Britain where it underwent detailed examination by scientists at Fort Halstead, the Government's forensic explosive laboratory in Kent.

The Ministry of Defence has attempted to play down the effectiveness of the weapons, suggesting that they are "crude" or "improvised" explosive devices which have killed British troops more out of luck than judgement.

However, this newspaper understands that Government scientists have established that the mines are precision-made weapons which have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions.

But where could the insurgency be getting such weapons?

British military sources believe the devices have been developed in Iran and smuggled across the border into Iraq where they are supplied to Iranian-backed anti-coalition insurgents.

The weapon first emerged on the Iraqi battlefield in May last year and since then it has been used more than 20 times to kill 17 British servicemen. The last two soldiers to be killed by the device were Lieut Tom Mildinhall, 27, and L/Cpl Paul Farrelly, 28, both members of the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards, who were killed on May 28 in a district north-west of Basra.

The devices, which are impossible to detect, can be easily camouflaged and triggered using infra-red technology, remote control or by a command wire.

Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph revealed how a multi-charged roadside bomb, developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon, was also being used against British and American soldiers by Iraqi insurgents.

Essentially, Cenk Uygur's argument appears to be that since he hasn't heard of such things, that they don't exist. I imagine that by that lofty standard, much of the world doesn't exist for him.

But he isn't done yet:

Guess who's supposed be bringing in the EFPs? Why Iran, of course. Really? Can these brilliant, anonymous defense analysts tell us who fire these EFPs and for what purpose?

They gave a lot of generic blame to the Mahdi Army because that is who we are going to attack next in Iraq. But are they saying the Mahdi Army is now engaging in combat against US troops? Because that would be news to everybody. Right now, it is believed that they are fighting - and often times brutally killing - Sunnis. But I haven't read anything about the Mahdi Army attacking coalition forces. Can this explosive new charge be proven in anyway? Have there been any of their fighters captured in the battlefield?

So many charges, so little evidence.

That the Madhi Army has engaged U.S troops is only new to you, Cenk. The rest of the educated world calls it "history."

The eight-day Battle of Najaf in August of 2004 featured 2,000 U.S Marines and 1,800 Iraqi Army soldiers against roughly 2,000 members of Muqtada al Sadr's Madhi Army. 159 militiamen and 261 were captured in this one battle alone.

Perhaps Cenk might be able to understand this information in a format more he might find more approachable. I'm sorry, but they don't have it yet on Playstation.

Najaf, was, of course, just one of many battles coalition forces fought against the Madhi Army between 2004 and October of 2006, and smaller scale, skirmish-level fights against the Shia milita have never ceased.

It's funny how much of the world you can miss when you are determined not to see it.

Dollard Updates

From time to time I've written about Pat Dollard, the former Hollywood agent turned outspoken Iraqi War documentary filmmaker and IED magnet. He has a new site design up, and it is quite improved over his old site. Check it out.

While you're there, make sure you drink in the Youtube video he found, where a Iraqi cleric thanks America for invading Iraq and daring to try to fix an Arab culture that has been broken for 1,400 years (his words). He compares the existing Arab culture to slavery repeatedly, and says that our attempt to give Iraq a democracy is the best thing that has ever happened in the region.

Don't look for CNN, ABC, CBS, or AP to share this video.

Pat was recently on Greg Gutfeld's new show on Fox News called Red-Eye. An excerpt of the interview was on Hot Air over the weekend, talking about media coverage of the war and the "bravery" of George Clooney.

The full 14 minute, 4 second segment was on Google Video, but doesn't presently appear to be working. Hopefully it will be up and running later today.

Pat's war documentary Young Americans will hopefully soon be released as a series soon, once he landsa distributor. He tells me hes just watched the two-hour pilot episode and knows what edits he would like to make, and should hopefully have it complete soon.

If you want a taste, he has five video clips posted here.

CONTENT WARNING: The Marines in this video drop F-bombs like they were trying out to be John Edwards campaign bloggers, and his choice of music is hardcore punk liberally sprinkled with the same kind of language. As you might also expect, some combat footage is also not for the sqeamish. You might want to save this until you get home, and the kids are off to bed. If you want one words to describe the footage Dollard collected in Iraq, "raw" describes it best.

Missing in Action

According to a source in Baghdad, the dozens of checkpoints manned by Madhi Army militamen in the Shia areas are now missing in western Baghdad as of Monday, and the militamen themselves are absent from public view. The western media should be able to confirm this fairly soon.

In the meantime, the U.S. has locked down the Rusafa district in preparation of sweeps in eastern Baghdad. These operations have been confirmed as part of the much-discussed surge:

American commanders described the operation Sunday in the Rusafa district as an early taste of large-scale sweeps expected in eastern Baghdad to take back some measure of control from militias. Troops from the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team were fired on by insurgents with automatic rifles, and they detained 10 Iraqis while searching for a car-bomb manufacturing site in the area, a violent sectarian fault line between a Shiite enclave and the insurgent-ridden Sunni neighborhood of Fadhil.

The operations in eastern Baghdad are to be a centerpiece of the so-called surge of 21,000 troops that many here view as a last-ditch effort to save the country from all-out civil war.

Eastern Baghdad "is a focal point for us right now," said Brigadier General John Campbell, deputy commander of coalition troops in Baghdad. American- led forces say they have conducted 3,400 patrols and detained 140 suspects in the past week.

Not surprisingly, Jon Kerry has attacked the surge, even though it has already commenced and American forces are already in combat.

Shocking, I know.

Dear John

As a fellow North Carolinian (well, you're close enough), I'll be perfectly up front about this: you never had a chance at getting my vote. I still remember you channeling a five-year-old cerebral palsy patient as a personal injury attorney using junk science, long before North Carolina newspapers nicknamed you "Senator Gone" for missing 43-percent of Senate votes after suspending your first Presidential run.

And yes, I still remember how you took advantage of a tax loophole to avoid paying more than a half million dollars in Medicare taxes by forming a subchapter S corporation. Did you know there are books out there about that now? Impressive legal work, to be sure... but I'm not sure those folks in that other America--those without a 28,200 square feet mansion and a million-dollar home on a private Island--feel about that. That $591,000 you cleverly steered away from Medicare and back into your own pocket, seems, well, deceptive for someone claiming to run as a populist.

That said, there are quite few folks living in your adopted home state that voted for you in your Senatorial bid in 1998, and voted for you again when you teamed up to run for President with John Kerry in 2004. Quite a few of those folks--I'd guestimate roughly 400-500 or so--go to my church in Cary. Something tells me they might not be so enthusiastic about your candidacy this time around.

Fair of foul, people--and particularly those people under the intense spotlight of a foundering Presidential campaign--are judged by the company they keep. Now, it has been well known for quite a while that Elizabeth Edwards is well known in the left wing blogosphere, but let's face facts: most Americans simply don't read blogs. Still the potential for danger was always there:

There are two ways to view Mrs. Edwards' posting on blogs. Some will wonder how wise it is for Edwards to enter this swamp. Every blogger has a sane/insane ratio for political posts ... we come to accept it from our peers. But when an aspiring First Lady says something pointed, it's not just typical Internet chatter, it's potentially big news. Elizabeth Edwards is extremely smart and a terrific writer ... but it's an incredible high-wire act for someone so prominent to attempt.

To date, your lovely wife has avoided "stepping in it" as the saying goes, but you haven't done too well with your newest forays into the blogosphere, managing to hire for yourself a couple of bloggers whose "sane/insane ratio" has now become national news.

Part of me admires you for sticking to your guns and keeping Amanda Marcotte and Melissia McEwan on staff despite their obvious and long-standing hatred of Christians--Marcotte alone has referred to Christians derisively at least 114 times, as "godbags"--but I don't think too many of my fellow North Carolina Christians are going to recognize your political courage, in which you bravely responded to radical left-wing astrology site's IMPORTANT ACTION ALERTS by doing exactly as they wanted.

Most of these folks could care less about Marcotte's thoughts about what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had aborted Jesus as an independent blogger, but they are concerned, because you don't seem to much care about the image that gives your campaign. Some might just get the sneaking suspicion that you might feel the same way.

Now, I know you're simply pandering to the left wing base to give yourself some fleeting hope of being able to parley your campaign into the Number Two slot behind Hillary! or Barack Obama, but that's because I'm a political blogger myself. But I'm not everybody, and you never had a chance at my vote.

That said, the family usually sitting several rows ahead of me Sunday mornings has a cracked and peeling Kerry/Edwards sticker on their minivan, which should put you in contention for their vote, but what do you think they felt when they opened the print edition of the Charlotte Observer, the Raleigh News & Observer, or my hometown Greenville Daily Reflector this morning, to find stories like this? It doesn't bode well, John.

In Greenville, where someone with similar degrees of tolerance for "godbags" and the "Christofascist base" decided to burn two churches and vandalize a third only weeks ago, I don't think you'll win any new fans, either.

I wish you the best of luck with your choices and your campaign.

Lord knows, you're going to need it.

A Gathering of Eagles

Via Bill Faith of Small Town Veteran, A Veterans group calling themselves "A Gathering of Eagles" will be on hand to protect the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, D.C. on March 17, against anti-war protesters they feel might intend to deface the monument dedicated to the more than 58,000 Americans who lost their lives fighting the Vietnam War. Anti-war protestors recently defaced the steps of the U.S Capitol with anti-war slogans.

From the "Gathering of Eagles" Web page:

"We'll be there to act as a countervailing force against the Cindy Sheehan-Jane Fonda march from the Vietnam Memorial to the Pentagon," retired Navy Capt. Larry Bailey said. "We will protect the Vietnam Memorial. If they try to deface it, there will be some violence, I guarantee you."

Bailey and thousands of his fellow Vietnam vets are worried that the anti-war protesters will damage the wall, just as they spray-painted the steps of the Capitol at their last march.

The wall is sacred to the men and women who fought in that war.

"It is our contact with our dead brothers -- those who lost their lives in the cause of their country," Bailey said.

And so it is that Washington will see a Gathering of Eagles - Americans determined to stand up against leftist propagandists who denigrate U.S. troops and the mission for which they sometimes sacrifice their lives.

Retired Col. Harry Riley organized the Gathering of Eagles. Organizers hope thousands will show up in Washington from as far away as Hawaii, and they won't only be Vietnam veterans. Families, friends and veterans of other wars, including Iraq, and soldiers still on active duty, will be there to defend the Wall.

It is shameful that this overwatch even needs to occur, but as the recent incident at the Capitol indicates, some anti-war protesters—and please note that we're only talking about a small minority of those protestors, I hope—feel there is something to gain by such seething displays of unbridled contempt for this country.

That said, looking at the participants in this march, I think that the "Gathering of Eagles" has every reason to feel concerned.

The leftist Web site MarchonPentagon.org describes the anti-war demonstrators this way: "The March on the Pentagon has already attracted more than 1,500 endorsers, including prominent individuals and national and grassroots organizations. Students on college campuses and in high schools will be attending in large numbers. There will be a large turnout from the Muslim and Arab American community, which is organizing throughout the country."

The movement is well-financed. Its sponsor list is lengthy and contains highly recognizable names, as well as those of Fonda and Sheehan:

• Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who offered his services to defend Saddam Hussein)
• Ultra-liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters
• Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
• Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author of "Born on the 4th of July"
• Mahdi Bray, executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
• Waleed Bader, vice chair of the National Council of Arab Americans and former president of Arab Muslim American Federation
• Medea Benjamin, co-founder, CODEPINK and Global Exchange
• Free Palestine Alliance
• Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
• Islamic Political Party of America
• FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front)
• Islamic-National Congress
• Gay Liberation Network
• Muslim Student Association
• Jibril Hough, chairman, Islamic Political Party of America

It may be worth noting that for a march apparently organized by leftists, the overwhelming majority of sponsoring groups have a radical Islamic focus.

The Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is one of the groups that threatened a "Sheikdown" of U.S Airways after the removal of six imams from a Minneapolis- to-Phoenix flight in which the imams performed what one airline pilot stated was "a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

A 2004 Chicago Tribune article states that the MSA is the American face of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that seeks to impose radical Islamist sharia law as the government of the United States. The terrorist group Hamas is also a wing of the Brotherhood, and the Brotherhood was financially supported by none other than Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini's movement is also responsible for kidnapping American embassy personnel for 444 days from 1979-81.

Osama Bin Laden was influence by professors closely alligned with the Brotherhood, and his current cavemate, Ayman al-Zawahiri joined the group at age 14 before "graduating" to found al Qaeda with bin Laden.

Mahdi Bray, current leader of that group and a supporter of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups according to JihadWatch, protested on behalf of both Ahmad Abu-Ali (charged with plotting to kill President Bush), and Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a man convicted in a plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Waleed Bader, vice chair of the National Council of Arab Americans and former president of Arab Muslim American Federation, previous protested against the "occupation of Iraq and Palestine." The National Council of Arab Americans called the creation of the state of Israel as the "Palestinian Catastrophe (Nakba) of 1948" just this past July.

The Free Palestine Alliance has attempted to stifle the business of Caterpillar Corporation (the bulldozer folks), saying that they want "to expose Caterpillar’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes." This "complicity" is apparently the IDF practice of using Caterpillar bulldozers to destroy tunnels used to smuggle firearms and explosives to terrorist groups in Gaza, which are then used to target Israeli civilians.

The Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, better known as FMLN, is a communist organization from El Salvador formed in 1970 which fought a civil war against that country's government in the 1980s, and was once identified as a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization before putting down their arms to become a purely political party.

The Muslim Student Association, with multiple chapters at universities around the country, has been investigated for funding terrorism multiple times. A Speaker from the group was once quoted by Robert Spenser as saying, "The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it." The MSA has invited neo-Nazis to speak at forums sponsored by the group.

These primarily Islamist groups are among the vanguard of those sponsoring the anti-war march scheduled in the nation's capitol for March 17. Based upon this roll call of Islamists, terror supporters, and neo-Nazi admirers playing a leading roll in the anti-war march, I'd say that the Gathering of Eagles has every reason to be concerned for the sanctity of the powerful monument known simply as The Wall.

Oh, Jeez...

It's a race to the bottom, kids.

Bill Donohue, president of the conservative-leaning Catholic League and the first to call on the Democratic presidential candidate to fire the bloggers, told FOXNews.com that he is not satisfied with Edwards' decision to scold — but not can — the staffers.

By not firing Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, Donohue said, Edwards is promoting anti-Catholicism. He said the 2008 Democratic contender's actions should be viewed in the same way it would be seen if Edwards had not fired a staffer who had used the 'n'-word.

"He's nothing more than David Duke with a blow-dried haircut," Donohue said of Edwards.

Considering the apparent shall we say, shared appreciation of the Jewish faith that Donahue and Duke seem to have in common, I think he better find a less self-immolating comparison.

"Is Anna Nicole Smith still dead, Wolf?"

The sensitivity of Jack Cafferty on display in CNN's The Situation Room, moments ago.

Classy guy, that Cafferty.

Update: Allahpundit has the video.

Swiftboating Redefined

It appears that the Marcotte/McEwan/Edwards blog controversy has entered a second day with little letup in the comments coming from both the right and the left.

For those of you just coming around to this story, the John Edwards campaign hired a pair of comically stereotypical feminist bloggers (on who's advice, no one will say), Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister, respectively. Once hired, some conservative and libertarian bloggers began bringing to light some of the previous posts written by these bloggers (focusing on Marcotte in particular), many of which are offensive to those outside of the insular world of far-left political blogging. A right-wing bigot by the name of Bill Donahue began calling for their heads for comments written by these two that he said were anti-Catholic, these comments hit the New York Times, and the brouhaha went mainstream.

By late yesterday afternoon, word leaked out that Marcotte and McEwan had been fired by the Edwards campaign...or not.

There have been a lot of pixels slung around on both sides in the blogosphere over this one, but I've been particularly fascinated at the response thus far from the liberal blogs trying to close ranks around Marcotte and McEwan.

Some are attempting to the "right-wing character assassination machine" for the issue being raised. Others are declaring a "rightwing Swiftboat-style attack" on the two bloggers. Another claims that the "smear train" has been fired up.

My, how the goalposts have changed.

According to Wikipedia, character assassination can be defined as:

Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person...

In practice, character assassination usually consists of the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation.

Also according to Wikipedia, "swiftboating" can be defined as:

Swiftboating is American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force.

This form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections...

"Smear train" and other assertions made on the left to describe this conflagration are not so easy to define, so let's focus on whether or not the allegations of "character assassination" and swiftboating" really apply to this case.

Character assassination requires "deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person," and "usually consists of the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation."

That is clearly not in evidence in this instance; Marcotte has been hoisted on her proverbial petard for her own controversial words, not for the words of others. The only possible claim of manipulation that can be made is that some critics have chosen to publish shorter excerpts of her commentary for the sake of brevity. Her comments, however have not been taken out of context, and a reader disturbed by her excerpted comments will be no less offended if they read the entire post in its entirety. In some instances, the full posts only serves to make Marcott'e comments more appalling to those offended by the excerpts. These comments made by Marcotte reflect her own, true feelings, as written by her own hand. A review of her comments resulted not in character assassination, but character definition. Charges of character assassination are completely false.

What about the charge of "swiftboating?"

The charges against Marcotte and McEwan are neither "difficult to verify or disprove." We have permalinks to what Marcotte haven't erased, and the rest is captured in the Google cache. The greatest damage done, clearly has been from a spotlight being cast on their own freely-given words. These words are, however, clearly based upon their own personal feelings, so one could presumably make the argument that they "swiftboated" themselves.

Other liberal bloggers have complained that Marcotte and McEwan have complained that the rantings on their personal blogs does not indicate in any way how they may perform as part of the Edwards campaign. It is of course true, but that was not the argument they were making when they pilloried Ben Domenech for the plagiarism he commited prior to joining the Washington Post as a blogger.

As a matter of fact, Media Matter's own David Brock stated:

...with each hour bringing new evidence of Domenech's racially charged rhetoric and homophobic bigotry, the time has come for the Post to end its ill-conceived relationship with Domenech. Examples of Domenech's views include:

• In a February 7 post on RedState, Domenech wrote that he believed people should be "pissed" that President Bush attended "the funeral of a Communist" -- referring to the funeral for Coretta Scott King. As you know, labeling the King family "communists" was a favorite tool of the racists who opposed them. In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.
• In still another RedState comment, Domenech posted without comment an article stating that "[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime" and that "[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership" because black leaders "are overwhelmingly in support" of abortion rights.
• In yet another, Domenech wrote that conservative blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, "needs a woman to give him some stability."

Domenech has also been caught at least once apparently fabricating a quote. A June 20, 2002, Spinsanity.org entry demonstrated that Domenech made up a quote he attributed to Tim Russert in order to defend President Bush.

In a post on RedState.com, Domenech once agreed with a commenter who called Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin "an embarrassment to the saner heads at the paper."

It is time for "saner heads" to prevail. Will The Washington Post honor its history as one of America's most respected news organizations -- or will it stand with Ben Domenech, tacitly endorsing his assault on Coretta Scott King, his offensive suggestion that a gay man "needs a woman," and his fabrication of a quote?

America is watching.

David Brock seemed very concerned about the rhetoric and bigotry of Domenech, even moreso than his plagiarism, if his letter can be believed. He and his fellow liberals were quite against what they construed as hate speech then.

Funny how Brock and other liberals don't seem to have a problem with the incendiary rhetoric and the readily apparent bigotry of two of their own, now.

Update: Edwards is not firing Marcotte and McEwan.

I lack the words to fully express just how devilishly amusing this is to me.

Luckily, Jeff G. captures the essence of this debacle perfectly:

But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.

Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.

As I wrote yesterday, I don’t care one way or the other, personally, about whether or not Marcotte and McEwan are allowed to keep their josb. That’s Edwards’ call. And from a blogging perspective, I suppose Edwards’ decision is good news.

But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.

Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.

Seriously. We should feel bad for them.

That is, were we to actually believe they meant any of it. Because how this plays out for the netroots is this way: either they are cheering on an ideological sellout, or they are knowingly and happily embracing an opportunistic liar. So. Congrats to them. Once again, they’ve covered themselves in white hot sticky glory!

There is more, of course, so be sure to read the whole thing.

My take away on this is that Marcotte, McEwan, and Edwards will say or do anything it takes to attempt to preserve their limited relevance. Once the primary season is over, Marcotte's and McEwan's futile efforts will be forgotten, but their willingness to prostitute their principles for a furtive brush with greatness will last far, far longer.

At least Edwards will still have nice hair.

His Name Was Scott

If you are going to write about the contractors killed by a mob in Fallujah, at least do them the honor of getting their names correct, you careless AP hacks:

The deaths of the four, all former members of the military, brought to U.S. television some of its most gruesome images of the Iraq war. A frenzied mob of insurgents ambushed a supply convoy the guards were escorting through Fallujah on March 31, 2004. The men were attacked, their bodies mutilated; two of the corpses were strung from a bridge.

At the hearing, Kathryn Helvenston-Wettengel, mother of Stephen Helvenston, read a statement on behalf of the families. She stopped several times to collect herself as she recounted the emotional day.

His name was Scott Helvenston.

He was a fitness instructor, a celebrity trainer, Navy SEAL, and most importantly, a father. I don't expect AP to go into those details of his life, but I do expect them to pay enough attention to at least get his name right.

Update: I stand corrected. Via email from Eddy Twyford, Scott Helvenston's best friend:

His full name is Stephen Scotten Helvenston but as you know he was always called Scott.

The reporter simply chose to use Helvenston's lesser known given name, instead of his preferred nickname. I apologize to the Associated Press for calling them "careless hacks."

Hatergate

The blogger dust-up over John Edwards choice of campaign bloggers has hit the mainstream media, as at least one radio station in Raleigh has pounced upon the foul language and anti-Catholic rants of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, of liberal blogs Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister, respectively.

John M. Broder of the NY Times is on the case as well:

Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

That last sentence is sure to elicit a giggle here in North Carolina, where Edwards is widely reviled by many. But I digress.

Why are these two bloggers under fire? In Marcotte's case specifically, it is for her stupifyingly ignorant and inflammatory remarks about the lacrosse rape case in particular, along with a general predisposition towards profanity-laced, intolerant rants on various subjects. For McEwan, it seems directed at her profanity-laced intolerant rants in general.

The Times article again, talking about Marcotte:

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to the use of contraception forced women "to bear more tithing Catholics." In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

She has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

Of course, the Times has chosen to present only her cleanest language: much of what Marcotte typically writes cannot be aired among civil and polite people. Her actual comment about the Immaculate Conception was this (h/t Patterico):

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Nice. McEwan, as I noted earlier, is cut from much the same cloth:

Ms. McEwan referred in her blog to President Bush's "wingnut Christofascist base" and repeatedly used profanity in demanding that religious conservatives stop meddling with women's reproductive and sexual rights. Multiple postings use explicit and inflammatory language on a variety of issues.

I don't think you need to see any direct quotes from her blog to get the point.

Depending on their differing perspectives, bloggers on the right and left are approaching the story quite differently.

Michelle Malkin has thus far "vented" on Marcotte not once, but twice. Hanging Marcotte with her own words is not only sport, it's easy sport, and Michelle is by no means the only blogger on the right taking issue with Edward's blogger; libertarians and conservatives alike have pounded her in a decidedly non-procreative way.

Liberal bloggers seem to be approaching this story as a tempest in a teapot. In general, they seem to be taking the position that a compliant media is doing the will of the conservative and libertarian blogosphere ("swiftboating", a term the left uses to disparage those who dare look at someone's track record of past performance), that the profanity issued forth on Pandagon, Shakespeare's Sister, and other liberal blogs is the main issue and really, no big deal; it isn't like those christofascist fringe right fundamentalists that consider women brood animals would vote for Edwards anyway.

In my completely humble opinion, they just don't get it.

Boiled down to its purest form, national politics is a popularity contest where something less than have of the population is going to dislike a candidate for simply belonging to particular party, while something less than the other half is going to accept the candidate for the same reason. Whether that candidate goes to Washington or end up in the Old Politician's Home depends largely on attracting the significant minority in the middle who have either not made up their minds, have an open mind, or can be persuaded to change their minds to support a certain candidate.

William Donahue and the Catholic League are bomb-throwers in their own right, as several of the liberal bloggers commenting on this story rightly observe, but that is also completely irrelevant. Bill Donahue is not trying to win anyone's nomination to be a candidate for President. John Edwards is, and he hired a pair of bloggers that are "easy pickings."

Is it fair to judge Marcotte and McEwan for their past comments? Shouldn't people instead just focus on their current work for the Edwards campaign? Oh, it would be nice in an ideal world if our track records weren't used to judge our future performances, but out here in the real world, where people hire you based upon the premise that past performance indicates your future successes (or failures), that simply isn't the case.

The Edwards campaign should have been cognizant of the liabilities of hiring these two particular bloggers, as they are indeed perfect examples of a very popular subset of liberal bloggers that have produced a body of work that will offend many of those potential voters who have not made up their minds, have an open mind, or can be persuaded to change their minds to vote for Edwards in the Democratic primaries. That the "wingnut Christofascist base"—liberal code for Republican conservatives—are not going to be voting in the Democratic primaries is completely irrelevant.

Democrats, many of whom are conservatives, and a majority of which are Christians and "breeders", are going to be choosing the Democratic Presidential candidates. Most of them don't read blogs, but many do read the newspapers, and they are likely to be offended that Edwards hired a pair of bloggers that mock their core values with the strongest possible language.

The kind of derisive language Marcotte, McEwan and her fellow travelers is widely accepted in their reality-based online community, but it is shocking enough to the supermajority of Americans that have never read a liberal blog, that even an ABC News blog questioned whether or not Marcotte's comments qualify as hate speech, and whether or not hiring Marcotte and McEwan means Edwards condones such speech. Fair or not, many people formerly in that potential pool of Edwards voters are going to make the judgement that Marcotte's and McEwan's comments are condoned by Edwards because he hired them. At least some of those people are now probably lost to the Edwards campaign, as judged by comments like these at the ABC blog:

Hate speech is hate speech, whether from a democrat or a republican. You learn a lot about a person by watching the people they associate with. Marcotte's comments say something about her, and a lot about Edwards.

Posted by: Leonard | Feb 6, 2007 7:34:32 PM

* * *

Of course she has a right to say this juvenile stuff, but the question is, does it show good judgement on the part of the Edwards campaign to hire someone like this?
Believe me, I'm hoping he keeps these bloggers on the payroll. This can and be used against him now and further into the campaign.

Posted by: Brian | Feb 7, 2007 10:50:28 AM

* * *
...Look, I am not easily offended. I love South Park, don't have any problem with their irreverent Jesus parody (and I am a Christian). But this person's description of the immaculate conception is just WAY over the line. There is irreverent and then there is crude disrespect.
Does she have the right to write it? Of course, this is the internet. Will I be contributing to Edwards' campaign, as I did in '04? No way. Not if this is the type of person he chooses to surround himself with.

Posted by: Ron C | Feb 7, 2007 11:36:40 AM

At best, a campaign blog can moderately help a candidate. At worst, it can be a debilitating side issue detracting from overall message discipline, and making people focus on rhetorical garbage and hatred that the candidate (rightly or wrongly) seems to condone.

Edwards made a bad choice in hiring McEwan and Marcotte, and is now reaping a media firestorm for not properly vetting his potential blogging staff. There are certainly articulate, thoughtful bloggers bloggers on the left far better qualified to hold these positions. Dave Johnson, I think, at Seeing the Forest may fit the bill for this kind of position, and I'm sure there is at least one other liberal blogger out there capable of holding a position without harboring such hate in their hearts.

Let me know when they find 'em.

Update: Godbags successful in crushing those speaking truth to power.

Truth be told, I'm kind of sad to see this happen. The Edwards campaign obviously didn't vet these two before offering them jobs. Firing them because of the the campaign's sloppiness in vetting their employees seems somewhat unfair. I'm not sure if McEwan has much lost over this, but Marcotte apparently moved across the country for this, and this will end up costing her real money.

Anyone know where she can find a good lawyer?

Hardball?

Jules Crittenden has a post up this morning called Hardball, Anyone?, in which he posits that the Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Baghdad may be an example of the U.S playing hardball by snatching a "diplomat" that is actually an Iranian intelligence agent fomenting sectarian violence.

Plausible? Certainly, and an interesting theory. The Iranians, of course, are alleging exactly that. But quite frankly it doesn't sound like our modus operandi.

We've captured Iranian operatives before--we're currently holding five right now--and our soldiers were in U.S. uniforms when they made their raids on a fixed location.

This diplomat--and I doubt very much he was a diplomat--was snatched from his car in a very crude ambush, where tow cars blocked his path, engaged his guards in a brief firefight, snatched him, and sped away. Four suspects in one car were captured by Iraqi police, only to be apparently set free by Iraqi government officials the next day.

Could this be a simple kidnapping? That government officials allegedly ordered the release of four of the suspects suggests that it was not. This looks like an Iraqi operation, or at least an operation executed by Iraqis.

The question seems to be whether or not this an unsanctioned action by a rogue element of the Iraqi government, a directed clandestine action by the Iraqi government, or if this was an Iraqi operation on behalf of the United States. Quite frankly, we don't know, but the last seems the least plausible. When we want to arrest Iranian "diplomats," we simply do it, out in the open, as we did with the five already in custody. Why risk someone else screwing it up?

I suspect this is an Iraqi operation, one designed to send a message about Iran's meddling in Iraqi affairs. The only question in my mind is whether this operation was cleared from Nori- al-Maliki's office, or whether this action was autonomously conducted by other elements of the Iraqi government.

Either way, I'm sure the message sent to Tehran was received loud and clear. It only remains to be seen if the diplomat ever turns back up, and what the Iranian response may be.

It's Official... Sorta

Live from Baghdad, the surge is officially on... depending on who you are listening to.

"Official" or not, American and Iraqi soldiers began operating yesterday, and are conducting raids tonight. To date, we have elements of the Iraqi Army 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th Divisions operating in the Baghdad battlespace with Interior Ministry commandos and various American units, including a Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne and elements the U.S 2nd Division.

Allah's updating like crazy. Stay tuned...

Coming Clean

Isn't it cathartic? (h/t Instapundit)

On Friday night's edition of Inside Washington airing locally on Washington PBS station WETA, the first topic was whether the media's been unfair to President Bush, given his abysmal approval ratings. NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said Bush received a "free ride" for years, so now the worm has turned and the coverage is fierce. Then the host turned to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who was frank in his assessment of the media's role:

Gordon Peterson: "What do you think, Evan? Are the mainstream media bashing the president unfairly?"

Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --"

Peterson: "But unfairly?"

Thomas: "Mmmm -- I think when he rebuffed, I think when he just kissed off the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, there was a sense then that he was decoupling himself from public opinion and Congress and the mainstream media, going his own way. At that moment he lost whatever support he had."

The message in that is very simple: the president must never "decouple" himself from the "mainstream media," because they are the key players in maintaining public opinion.

Honesty is such a lonely word.

Rudi's In

So it seems like "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani, is one step closer to running for President:

In a sign that he's serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor was filing a so-called "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission. In the process, he was eliminating the phrase "testing the waters" from earlier paperwork establishing his exploratory committee, said an official close to Giuliani's campaign.

AP is all over it at Hot Air.

A lot of folks seem thrilled that Guiliani's throwing his hat in the ring, but I'm not one of them. His 9/11 leadership was extraordinary (compare his inspired performance to Ray Nagin's quivering collapse after Hurricane Katrina for juxtaposition), but his personal failures and his overtly liberal positions on a whole raft of issues leave me cold.

The only thing that Rudy brings to the table over our current President is his ability to articulately explain why he won't enforce or borders while increasing the bloat of the federal government.

Factor in his pro-gun control views, and Guiliani's a Republican candidate not worth having... one of many.

Drafting Fred is starting to look like a better idea all the time.

Surge

It has apparently. begun, and the rash of terrorist attacks over the past week, including the suicide truck bombing Saturday of a Baghdad marketplace frequented by both Sunni and Shia makes it appear, at least on the surface, that the terrorists were either attempting to get their last licks in before the expected crackdown before melting away, or the were planning to stay and fight. Of course, with different groups making different decisions (some reports indicate the Shia militias may go dormant; past experience tends to show that diehard al Qaeda elements prefer to seek their martyrdom), the attacks may have no more "meaning" than they typically do.

CNN reports on what appears to be the start of the much-debated "surge."

U.S. and Iraqi forces on Monday were preparing to launch a major security crackdown in Baghdad to curb sectarian bloodshed as a wave of bombings pushed the country's death toll to more than 1,000 in seven days.

Even as the security plan was being finalized, fresh violence continued to escalate the carnage with fresh explosions across the Iraq capital claiming more lives.

The city was still reeling from a massive suicide truck bomb on Saturday that detonated in a bustling market place, killing nearly 130 people in one of the worst attacks in the city since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.

The United Nations says almost 17,000 people have died from fighting in the last year in Baghdad.

There was no official timeline for the launch of the new security plan, but U.S. Colonel Douglass Heckman, the senior adviser to the 9th Iraqi Army Division, said it was expected to begin shortly after a transition of military control in the city.

"Officially the Baghdad Operational Command takes over tomorrow, so the expectation is that the plan will be implemented soon thereafter, very soon thereafter," he said, according to The Associated Press.

Two Iraqi newspapers have reported the operation, the third attempt since May 2006 to pacify the capital, would begin Monday.

Heckman said thousands of U.S. and Iraqi reinforcements already were in place for the neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweep to clamp off the violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia, AP said.

Greyhawk has a round-up at Mudville Gazette that suggests the surge is starting today, and that a Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne is already deployed in Baghdad as part of the first wave of the surge.

Back in the States, our feckless Senators, led by the craven John Warner, (R-Va.), and Carl Levin, (D-Mich.), are now set to attempt to debate their gutless non-binding opposition to the surge. This is especially disgusting when you take into account that these senators already know (or should know) that U.S. and Iraqi units are already engaging.

What moral cowardice it takes to debate a "non-binding resolution" which has no responsibility associated with it. What moral turpitude to attempt to undercut a battle already being joined.

I don't expect much from our Senators, but I do expect them to have enough courage to either issue forth law, or shut up. A non-binding resolution is the mark of a political coward; it means nothing, stands for nothing, and merely serves to provide them "wiggle-room" in either direction depending on the outcome of the battle.

Michael Yon, currently in Iraq spoke about the surge on yesterday's The Glenn and Helen Show. He said it will be like "unlike anything we've seen before."

Watch, and we will see. At this point, with so much of the public against the war, the future of our involvement in Iraq depends on the outcome.

Update: I just confirmation from a source in Baghdad. The "surge" started today, and is underway.

Update: I just called MNSTC-I PAO LTC Kevin Buckingham to get official word on the surge, and "the offical word" is that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will release the official word of when the surge starts.

We do know that Iraqi forces already establishing checkpoints throughout five districts, and we know it was Iraqi soldiers (with U.S. forces in support) that killed Khadhim al-Hamadani, a top al-Sadr official in the Medhi Army, in a raid last night.

Readers should keep in mind that the official, announced start and end dates of military operations are not always the same as the actual start and end dates.

According to al Sabaah, battalions of the Iraqi 3rd, 5th and 7th Divisions, along with Interior Minsitry commando units, are currently being deployed.

Measuring Bias

Ace of Spades found an interesting article at Slate over the weekend about a series of online bias tests called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT, with the most popular one being the race IAT, to judges your biases (prejudices) based upon timed responses to paired words and images.

It works like this:

In the test's most popular version, the Race IAT, subjects are shown a computer screen and asked to match positive words (love, wonderful, peace) or negative words (evil, horrible, failure) with faces of African-Americans or whites. Their responses are timed. If you tend to associate African-Americans with "bad" concepts, it will take you longer to group black faces with "good" concepts because you perceive them as incompatible. If you're consistently quicker at connecting positive words with whites and slower at connecting positive words with blacks—or quicker at connecting negative words with blacks and slower at connecting negative words with whites—you have an implicit bias for white faces over those of African-Americans. In other words, the time it takes you to pair the faces and words yields an empirical measure of your attitudes. (Click here for a more detailed description of the test.)

The elegance of Banaji's test is that it doesn't let you lie. What's being measured is merely the speed of each response. You might hate the idea of having a bias against African-Americans, but if it takes you significantly longer to group black faces with good concepts, there's no way you can hide it. You can't pretend to connect words and images faster any more than a sprinter can pretend to run faster. And you won't significantly change your score if you deliberately try to slow down your white = good and black = bad pairings.

Banaji, now a social psychologist at Harvard, has found that 88 percent of the white subjects who take her test show some bias against blacks. The majority of all subjects also test anti-gay, anti-elderly, and anti-Arab Muslim. Many people also exhibit bias against their own group: About half of blacks test anti-black; 36 percent of Arab Muslims test anti-Arab Muslim; and 38 percent of gays show an automatic preference for heterosexuals.

Sounds interesting, no? A test that won't let you lie, even to yourself. I'd like to see how CY readers fare on this, so if you have the time (about 10-15 minutes), take the test at this link (follow the link on this page to the "Race IAT."

Then post your age, race, and state where you grew up, along with your results in the comments. I've already taken it, and I'll post a screen capture of my results page tonight.

Also tell me if your results surprised you, or if they were about what you thought they would be.

As promised, a screen capture of my results for the Race IAT:

The results mark me as part of a fairly rare group, part of the 12-percent of whites that have no bias against blacks, and part of a smaller sub-group of whites that is actually biased in favor of blacks.

I'm sure this probably surprises some people, and I must admit that I am a bit amused that, statistically speaking, I'm probably less biased than quite a few of the liberal bloggers and their commenters that pitch hysterical hissy fits because of the name of this blog.

I'd invite them to also take this specific Race IAT and post their results, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many wouldn't like their results known.

Global Warming: The Un-Science of Fear

Long before al Gore invented the Internet, way back in 1989-90, I was an undergraduate taking a series of geology classes, and I liked them well enough that I gave serious thought to making that branch of science my vocation.

Times and majors changed, but I can still recall the long view of the earth's climate over the course of history, and so when I hear politicians like Barbara Boxer declare "The scientific debate is over," on global warming, then I know that I am hearing the words of someone scientifically incurious, politically reactionary, and/or hopelessly gullible.

The debate isn't over. For what it is worth, most of the "debate" is simply invalid. Junk science. Hype.

Humankind has very little or nothing to do with climate change, a fact that that a group of idiots assembled in Paris can't quite seem to grasp.

Let me say it very slowly: Global warming is real, but mankind has little or nothing to do with it, and it is a transitory state.

Here's a little reality check for Al Gore:

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

The simple fact of the matter is that global warming began 18,000 years ago as we started leaving the Pleistocene Ice Age. We are currently on the tail end of a 20,000-year interglacial period, and do you know what that means?

If millions of years of history can be our guide—and it should— we are within a few hundred years of entering a new ice age.

Global warming advocates attempt to say that global warming can be tied to an increase of greenhouse gases they tie to the Industrial Revolution. They're confusing proximation with causation. Just because things occur at the same time doesn't mean they are related... unless, of course, you really want to believe that on this day in 1971, a groundhog seeing his shadow somehow helped the success of Idi Amin's coup in Uganda. Good luck with that.

No, the Industrial Revolution coincided with global warming, but it didn't cause it. It was merely part of a cycle already millions of years older than mankind itself.

Baby Step:

Big Picture:

(both charts from here, which will decode them for you quite nicely.)

The "science" you see from proponents of the idea that humans are behind global warming are guilty of finding precisely what they were looking for, not of promoting responsible science.

What causes global warming? Read the link above, but if your eyes start to glaze over, Jules Crittenden's take isn't far off:

Re Earth. It gets hot. It gets cold. This is what Earth does. No one knows why. Even the scientists who say its getting hot because of human activity, when pressed, have to admit it might be only heating up at a greater rate because of human activity, but even then, no one can really say for sure.

It's hotter now than it's been since the time of Jesus. What that means is, 2,000 years ago, the Earth was as hot as it is now. I'm blaming Iron Age farming practices and smelting for that New Testament uptick. Or maybe it was the righteous fire and burning passion of the age … have to go back and have another look at the ice cores. Might find some particles of faith.

By the 14th century, it was wicked cold. And I do mean wicked. Like, medieval cold. Even all those witch burnings had no effect. But not as cold as it was 10,000 years ago. We're really only just starting to warm up from that. We have a long way to go before it is as warm as it was 66 million years ago, you know, Everglades in Montana warm.

All the time in between, I'm fuzzy on the temps. But I'm going to take a wild guess. Warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold. You have a water view? Look out. It might come through your window. Never know. Things happen.

You would think that the Global Warming Evangelicals would have a handle on the way-cool existentialism of this, considering some are actually poets instead of scientists, but perhaps we overestimate how good they are at being poets, as well.

"Screw Them" Again, or Set-Up?

Curt over at Flopping Aces found this little gem in the comments to William Arkin's blog entry which labeled American military personnel mercenaries:

We know that Kos has issued forth the words "Screw them" in the past when talking about the four private security contractors that were killed in Fallujah in 2004, hung from a bridge, and their bodies burned beyond recognition.

He even claimed to be proud of it... while trying to hide it.

But has Kos now gone so far as to agree with Arkin that all American soldiers are mercenaries, worthy of death?

Somehow I think that statement would be a "bridge too far," even for Kos.

Update: Fraud confirmed. I blame Diebold.

Update: Charles Johnson has a few thoughts on the subject as well.

Cincinnati: Best Place to be a Vigilante

So a 77-year-old Minnesota farmer and local Township Board member by the name of Kenneth Englund has been charged for taking the law into his own hands, chasing down a thief and holding him at gunpoint until police arrived.

A lot of us would like to do what the farmer did in this case, or are at least supportive of such actions, but civilians are simply not allowed to do what this man did.

As the sherrif said:

Sheriff Mike Ammend said people can't take the law into their own hands, and that Englund's actions were "an invitation to a shootout. There's so many things that could have gone wrong here."

Englund has been charged with second-degree assault.

Which brings me back to this.

Paul Hackett did almost the exact same thing in Ohio. The man who drove through his yard has already been sentenced.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters decided not to charge Hackett.

Apparently, vigilante justice is just fine in Hamilton County.

The Martyr

Michael Yon offers a powerful account of the last act of a selfless Iraqi civilian in his latest dispatch, The Hands of God.

This is the kind of story you will not likely hear uttered by the New York Times or the Associated Press.

This is the caliber of the people that liberals would abandon to terror.

Appropriate Responses

William Arkin has garnered quite a bit of heat for some of his comments in a blog entry posted earlier this week that labeled those who wear the uniform of the American military "mercenaries," and stated, "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform..."

It was, in a word, disgusting.

Yesterday, Arkin offered up a response to the immense blowback his previous post generated, and Arkin, much to his dishonor, chose to single out the most angry responses to his initial post, while utterly refusing to engage the most thoughtful ones. In some ways, his response was more outrageous than his initial post, apparently labeling those serving in our nations military as fascists:

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

A very interesting point about his response was that it was not posted on his blog's main page; it was only available through a direct hyperlink. Was Arkin or WPNI (Washington Post Newsweek Interactive, the company running Washingtonpost.com) attempting to hide the post?

By early this morning, another oddity occurred: The second post was back on Early Warning, but as a sharp-eyed reader of Stephen Spruill's Media Blog noted:

Hmm, this is interesting. Now there's a third post sandwiched *between* the other two, offering a somewhat more sincere (but halfhearted, frankly) apology for the use of the term "mercenary".

That post simply wasn't there before, even when the "Arrogant and Intolerant" post was added to the table of contents.

By my account, the apology *followed* his second tirade. But now it's showing up before it. Is Mr. Arkin trying to reorder the timeline here, to make it look like his detractors are blowing right past it?

Sure enough, that is exactly what I found when I checked Arkin's blog around 9:00 AM, but minutes later, the posts had flip-flopped with his third screed now posted in a correct chronology.

I don't know if Arkin was playing as fast and loose with the posting order and the transparency of these articles as he played with the pejorative statements he aimed at our military in not one, but two separate posts, but it does bear asking.

On another front in this discussion, some bloggers are calling for a boycott of the Washington Post's advertisers over Arkin's inflammatory (and to my mind, unnecessarily vicious and indefensible) attacks, and still others are calling upon the Washington Post to flatly fire Arkin for expressing these opinions.

I don't agree with either approach.

Arkin is entitled to his apparent contempt for the military, and has the right to share his opinion, no matter how offensive we find it to be. If Arkin was misrepresenting facts, that would be another case entirely, but his posts were clearly opinion pieces.

That said, Arkin's rants—and I feel that his specific, intentional and acknowleged choice of wording justifies the term "rant"—along with the rather questionable re-ordering and obfuscation of his posts should be reviewed by both pundits and the Washington Post itself as two separate, but related issues.

The purpose of Arkin's blog Early Warning is stated to be this:

Starting Sept. 14, Early Warning will report daily on the comings and goings of the national security community -- military, special ops, intelligence, homeland security -- part blog, part investigative journalism (a jog!). Here I can post documents, go into great detail, stick with a story when others have moved on, and introduce one that has escaped the mainstream media.

There's no question that The Washington Post is mainstream media, but in this space of theirs, I'll have more freedom. Still, I won't fudge facts or feed an even more confused and conspiratorial picture of the secret agencies.

My basic philosophy is that government is more incompetent than diabolical, that the military gets way too much of a free ride (memo to self: Don't say anything bad about the troops), and that official secrecy is the greatest threat citizens actually face today.

Earlier this year, I wrote a book -- Code Names -- that not only lays out my views on secrecy, but also provides the goods (and thanks friends for keeping code names coming). As you'll find out, I'm an obsessive compulsive kind of collector - acronyms, code names, nomenclatures, events, dates, documents. For 30 years I've been putting together little pieces of information to try to produce the BIG PICTURE.

Early Warning is an opportunity to put my stockpiles to good use. As I dig into the hundreds of documents already in my possession, I'll be looking for your comment and dissent (and for those of you with your own stockpiles, for your contributions). I know I'm writing mostly for a hyper-informed world of national security geeks, but my larger objective is a more informed public and to demolish false authority, in government, in the special interests, and in the media. My target list, frankly, is too vast to even summarize. I also hope to have some fun in writing without the straitjacket of traditional journalistic conventions.

Calling those in our military "mercenaries," stating that we have "indulged" them through "every rape and murder," only to later imply they are fascists in a follow-up post, shows that Arkin has clearly failed in his memo to himself: "Don't say anything bad about the troops."

This is a failure on Arkin's part, but we all fail or contradict ourselves at some point if we write long enough; human beings are, unfortunately, often hypocritical beasts. If any blogger feels that they have not been hypocritical or contradictory at some point they are simply deluding themselves. This alone is not a firing offense. All he is sharing is an opinion, though an unpopular one.

What perhaps the Washington Post should perhaps consider in the future is whether or not Arkin is the best person to continue writing this particular blog. It seems quite possible that this series of rants has created an adversarial relationship with the very national security community he was apparently hired to cover. It might be that because of his opinions, he has poisoned the proverbial well, and that the editors of the Washington Post may find that his stated opinions have made him unsuited to continue this particular assignment. That decision, I hasten to add, is completely and wholly a decision to be made by the editors of the Washington Post. He either retains his ability to do his job effectively, or he doesn't, and that can only be determined by his future performance. If the editors determine in the future that his ability to continue in this position has been diminished, perhaps they will opt to find another person of equal or greater ability to continue writing on this subject, but in no way should Arkin's employment by the Washington Post be determined purely for the opinions stated in these two posts.

The separate but related issue of the rather questionable re-ordering and obfuscation of his posts is another matter entirely.

If it can be reasonably determined that this was merely a technical issue or an honest mistake by either Arkin or someone at WPNI, then this is quite understandably something that can be forgiven. If however, it is determined that Arkin or someone else purposefully kept his second post from appearing on the front page of Early Warning, or if someone purposefully re-ordered the post order to intersperse his second response in order to make his critics appear harsh, or unforgiving, then we are discussing an ethical matter which may require a more immediate and permanent response.

It takes a Rodent to Know a Rodent

Punxsutawney Phil has emerged from his burrow and predicted and early spring. I can only surmise this means an early end to Chuck Hagel's presidential aspirations.

Time to Purge

If there was ever a good time to consider purging elements of the Iraqi government that many see as being "in bed" with al-Sadr's militia and Iran, this might qualify (via Greg Tinti).

Two senior Iraqi generals are being questioned in connection with last week's attack in Karbala that left five U.S. soldiers dead, Pentagon officials told FOX News Thursday.

Military officials also said the level of sophistication of the attack — where militants posed as U.S. soldiers to pass a number of security checkpoints — suggested possible Iranian involvement.

The assault was carried out by nine to 12 militants wearing new U.S. military fatigues and traveling in black GMC Suburban vehicles — the type used by U.S. government convoys. U.S. officials said the imposters had American weapons and spoke English.

The raid, as explained by Iraqi and American officials, began after nightfall at about 6 p.m. on Jan. 20, while American military officers were meeting with their Iraqi counterparts on the main floor of the Provisional Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala.

The Pentagon said the investigation into the attack is ongoing and several Iraqis have been detained for questioning.

Because high-level generals were possibly involved, the Pentagon said, it raises questions about the loyalty and trustworthiness of Iraqi military officers at the highest levels.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibilty that the Karbala attack did involve the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps as some have suggested, and that these two Iraqi generals are in fact in some way complicit in this attack.

If this is indeed the case, then this would seem to be a case of treason by these two generals. A great deal of interest will be paid in seeing how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki deals with this situation, and if he is judged to mishandle it, it could be very detrimental to his government. Many already feel that al-Maliki is far too cozy with the Madhi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr, and are critical of his apparent disinterest in Iran's involvement within Iraq.

Should al-Maliki fail here, his government stands to lose trust already wearing thin.

That Second America Comes with Gated Access

Recently Democratic Presidential candidate and North Carolina's non-favorite son drew quite a bit of grumbling for his $6 million, 29,000 sq/ft estate outside of Chapel Hill.

As noted at National Review Online: "There Are Two Americas; John Edwards' New House Takes Up Almost All of One Of Them" (h/t Instapundit).

But where is Edward's Other America?

According to the N&0 article cited above, it's here:

Welcome to Figure Eight Island.

According to Figure8Island.com:

Cross the private bridge to Figure Eight Island and you'll find a peaceful, seaside haven with sparkling blue waters and miles of sandy white beach. Nature lovers will delight in the endless occasions for bird watching, shell seeking and quiet strolls along the shore. And sports enthusiasts will discover ideal conditions for everything from kayaking and windsurfing to biking and tennis.

But the real beauty of this tranquil island lies in what you won't find...like hotels, shopping centers, traffic and tourists! With only 441 homes (and no condos!), this five-mile, 1,300-acre island offers the best of both worlds...a serene private oceanfront community just minutes from all the exceptional amenities of Wilmington, NC and Wrightsville Beach, NC.

You've got to love that private bridge. It helps keep those "Two Americas" separate... but equal, I'm sure.

We don't have picture identifying Edwards private island luxury beach estate, but we do know that it is quite cramped at only 2,778 sq/ft, and very economical, with a tax value of just $1.03 million.

Here's picture of the neighborhood.

Nice Ferrari.

Changing Opinions

It seems that WaPo blogger William Arkin has created quite the firestorm with the most recent entry to his Early Warning blog, where he labeled those brave members of our military mercenaries, and suggested "it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people" and their opposition to winning the war in Iraq. Arkin also said that our soldiers should be grateful that the American people still support and respect them, and send them "obscene amenities."

I can only assume Arkin means such "obscene amenities" as body armor, bullets and MREs. I can hear the new Marine recruiting slogan now:

"The Few. The Proud. The Pampered."

I guess that is why Parris Island is considered quite the four-star resort. Allow me to introduce you to your leisure-time directors.

Why, it's just like a Disney vacation.

And so while my friends in the blogosphere have a slight difference of opinion with Mr. Arkin, let me suggest that getting angry with him is not the way to get him to change his opinion. In fact, he's libel to get quite defensive, and become even more firmly ensconced in his beliefs, which I've heard rumor that he first acquired while a Greenpeace activist, when other GPers once sent him to spend the evening on a cold, isolated beach to protect nearby sea-going mammals from the particularly evil U.S. Navy sport of "whale-tipping," before leaving him to go to a party in town. That Arkin's disgust for the military has only hardened since that night, where he was traumatically assaulted by a male sea lion, is perfectly understandable.

I think that perhaps what Mr. Arkin needs now, more than anything, is a supportive environment, where he can face his phobias and apparent disgust for our military. He would probably be much more willing to change his opinion were he to spend more time with those he derides, to better understand them.

But where could he find such an environment?

If recent dispatches from elsewhere in the blogosphere may be a worthy guide, I'd suggest that he partake of the opportunity shared by bloggers such as Bill Ardalino, Bill Roggio, Michelle Malkin, Bryan Preston, and of course, Michael Yon. Perhaps what would go the furthest in changing his opinion of our soldier is a simple, short embed with our military in Iraq.

Towards that end, and wanting to help out, I sent to the following emails to people that I am quite sure would be very hospitable towards the idea of helping Mr. Arkin find common ground with our soldiers in the field.

To embedded blogger Michael Yon, with whom I correspond regularly, I sent the following:

William Arkin of the "Early Warning" WaPo blog just called our soldiers mercenaries, among other pleasantries.

Michelle, Allah, Blackfive, etc are trying to reem the guy for his opinion, but I'd suggest another route.

Michael, how would you feel about offering Mr. Arkin a guided tour of the Iraq battlespace, so that he would actually get to know our troops, and then perhaps change his opinion? Can I ask him if he'd like to embed with you? Would that be okay?

As Michael is probably cavorting at a local-themed spa, he hasn't yet responded. I'm sure he will as soon as he has completed his mud bath.

I also contacted my friends at MultiNational Corps-Iraq PAO and asked them if they've be willing to help:

I'm probably sure by now you've heard of the controversial remarks made by Washington Post blogger William Arkin about the "obscene amenities" that our soldiers have in the field in the Middle East, and I was wondering if you could tear yourselves away from the hot tub and polo grounds long enough to post an invitation to Mr. Arkin to come experience these extravagances for himself as an embed. Posting an embed offer might just provide the feeling of warmth and acceptance he needs to come over and experience the posh resort lifestyle that all of you joined the military to enjoy. Please consider extending Mr. Arkin such and invitation after your next tanning session.

Once Mr. Arkin has the opportunity to experience these posh amenities firsthand, I hope that this opinion he has harbored will be open to change.

Update: Arkin responds to his critics, in The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out:

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Update: The single most impressive response thus far to Arkin, by an injured active duty Army officer:

Mr. Arkin-

I am an officer in the United States Army. I have deployed to Iraq twice, and been wounded once. I have had my soldiers killed and wounded, I have killed and wounded other human beings. I have carried wounded soldiers and civilians in my arms; crying in pain. I myself am permanently physically damaged by my experience.

Through all those events, I never shed a tear. Yet I sit here today crying; reading your original article and your rebuttal to the overwhelming response.

I am proud of what I do, what my soldiers do, the freedoms we defend, and everything we stand for. I proudly defend your right to publish your article, and it actually warms my soul to see free debate and discourse about any topic, because this is the only nation in the world where such completely unbridled discussion and opinion rage on in an organized fashion. That is the United States I am proud of, the one that has given me so much.

I decry and am ashamed of my fellow warriors who have lost their thin veneer of civilization and chosen to engage in the atrocities committed in Iraq. May God have mercy on their souls.

I have chosen to shelve my right to have an opinion on the war in Iraq. I support our effort to help the Iraqi people, depose Saddam, and promote a free(er) Iraq. Are we (or can we) still doing that? I don't know anymore. I have an opinion, but it is too visceral to be truly rational anymore, so I keep it to myself.

Overall, it does not matter. My country, almost unanimously, asked me to refresh the tree with my blood in Iraq/Afghanistan 6 years ago. That was this country, by referendum. As my country comes to terms with what she has done, and possibly chooses a different path, I will soldier on. I will guide and inspire my Soldiers to do the same. But, it saddens me to see so many of my brothers and sisters killed and maimed, only to find out my country either didn't mean it or had no stomach for it.

None of these are the reasons I cry. I cry for the lack of purpose, the apparent lack of caring, the lack of compassion you displayed in your original article and in this subsequent failure to apologize to me, my fellow warriors, and all those who came before me. Here's why.

1. I am not a mercenary. You could make me work two jobs and this would still be one of them, because I am that passionate about defending you and your rights. Many in the National Guard and Reserves do just that. My country needs professional warriors to do her bidding, and he is me, and thousands like me.

2. I have the right to express my opinion within the bounds of the UCMJ, as do my Soldiers. How dare you imply that I do not, or that I should reprimand them? We already accept an abbreviated set of rights willingly. Do not attempt limit my liberties that I have already willingly limited while I defend without complaint the unabridged version you are so rightly entitled to.

3. As an officer, my needs are met. However, in the three months leading up to my first deployment and the entire 13 month adventure, my pay amounted to 173 cents an hour. My friends and I logged our hours as a joke, but $1.73 is the reality. That equates to 19-20 hour days, 7 days a week, for 16 months. That's with the relatively lavish bonuses and benefits we receive while deployed. And I am an officer. Think of our junior enlisted, and find someone else in our great country that is willing to work so hard, day and night, no weekends, under fire, threat of death over their head, for so little? Find me one and I will retract this comment graciously. Of course, even when not deployed, it takes my wife and me quite some time to get through the line at the grocery store. That's because we get in line behind one of my fellow warriors, who with shame in their eyes and faces flush with embarrassment fill out their WIC paperwork because they don't make enough to support their wife and two kids (an average sized family).

4. This response is taking an inordinate amount of time to type, because I have only one functioning hand after being wounded in Iraq. I am trying as quickly as possible to use the medical system your (and my) taxes paid for to recover, so I can go back to Iraq and continue to fight for what you don't believe in, because I believe in you and my Soldiers. Still, I count myself lucky, as I received my Purple Heart next to a 19-year old warrior with both his legs amputated above the knee. No matter how wrong the majority feels the decision was at this juncture, that Soldier gave (I use the word gave deliberately) his legs at his nation's calling. Not for money. Not because he was too stupid to get into college. Not for the great benefits. Just because you asked him to. Please don't imply that this fallen hero is not entitled to the basic medical care he receives.

5. Given the opportunity, I would fight the Germans in 1944. Oh, to have that definition of purpose, that sense of righteousness! But, that is not to be. This is the war that this country has chosen for me, my peers, and my Soldiers. With its vagueness, dirtiness, ambiguity, undefined enemy, amorphous center of gravity, and undefined purpose. The actions of our administration, the decisions higher-echelons of our military, the blunders of the CPA, (I could go on) etc. aside; it comes back to one thing. America chose this fight for me, and I will fight it with all my skill and might until she tells me to stop. The woes and throes of the majority, hawks, doves, liberals, neocons, etc. mean nothing to me or those Soldiers you quoted. What matters to us is that you told us to be there, 3000+ of our brothers and sisters have died there, and we are still there. Change that - in reality, not in the abstract - and we will gladly leave and prepare ourselves for the next challenge and opportunity to defend your freedoms.

I am a Warrior, a Soldier, a Scholar, and a Patriot. This country has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and educate me. I am well-versed in our government, our demographics, our history, and our Constitution. Perhaps I am an idealist. To the end of my life or capability I will defend your rights and this country. I am proud that I live in a country where a free-thinker such as you can write an article so critical of current policy. But I am deeply hurt by the insinuations and accusations listed above. I request an apology, on the behalf of all the Armed Forces, for your insensitive and boorish comments. I only wish I could communicate with your entire readership the bitter taste of betrayal that is in my mouth as easily as you communicate your speech and thoughts.

With Respect,

A United States Army Officer
"Army Strong"